The High Court has declined to alter a Taxing Master’s assessment of solicitor-client costs owed by Monica Leech to McCann Fitzgerald, rejecting all five grounds she raised in a review of the taxation.
In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2019, Mr Justice Barr held that the court could not consider a new objection to the Taxing Master’s original ruling if it had not been raised at the written-objection stage. Ms Leech, who represented herself during the taxation process, had argued that the Taxing Master used an incorrect starting figure when calculating the instructions fee. The court said that point had not been raised before the Taxing Master and could not be introduced for the first time on review. It added that, even if the court could consider the calculation, the Taxing Master had taken account of other factors and there was no definite error requiring the fee to be changed.
The court also rejected Ms Leech’s complaint that the absence of her former solicitor’s original file had denied her a fair hearing. It noted that file materials had been considered during the taxation, that her legal costs accountant had earlier had access to the original files, and that she had not established prejudice. The Taxing Master had considered the documentation and explanations sufficient to assess the costs.
Ms Leech argued that her costs for a 2011 mediation were capped at €10,000 under a letter from the solicitor. The court found no agreement had been made: in a 2015 letter to the Taxing Master, Ms Leech said she had not agreed to lodge the requested €10,000. The court therefore found no basis to disturb the mediation fees allowed.
The court also held that an earlier fee estimate did not bind the solicitor or prevent the Taxing Master from assessing the costs. It found no evidence that the assessment included a “success type fee arrangement”.
Finally, the court upheld allowances of €2,000 for postage, telephone calls and sundry outlays, and €4,230.15 for photocopying. The latter was 75% of a claimed €5,640.20 for copying that the Taxing Master considered had not been charged elsewhere. The court accepted that codes Ms Leech thought might refer to other cases identified the staff who carried out the copying.
The court’s decision concerned the review of the taxation. It declined to disturb the Taxing Master’s rulings; the judgment did not make a new assessment of the costs.