The High Court has sent back for reconsideration a €9,000 allowance in a personal-injury costs dispute, finding that the Taxing Master had not sufficiently explained the €3,000-per-day rate and that it appeared disproportionate to the overall instructions fee.
The judgment does not set a replacement amount. Mr Justice Hanna said there was no evidence before him to readjust the figure or determine whether a readjustment was necessary, so the matter had to return to the Taxing Master.
The underlying claim arose from injuries Michael Brehony suffered on 1 November 2001 while working for Longford Westmeath Farmers Mart Limited at its mart in Ballymahon, Co Longford. The personal-injury proceedings were listed in the High Court on 11, 12 and 16 February 2010. The case was not reached on the first two days and settled on the third for €35,000, plus High Court costs and reserved costs to be taxed if the parties could not agree. The settlement was ruled on the following day.
During taxation of the bill of costs, Taxing Master Charles A. Moran allowed €3,000 for each listed day as part of the solicitor’s instructions fee. Taxing Master Flynn later affirmed that allowance after objections. The defendant sought a High Court review limited to the disputed Item 188, the instructions fee. It argued that the daily allowance duplicated the small attendance fee set by court rules and was disproportionate; the plaintiff argued that time spent waiting for a listed case to be reached could properly be reflected in the instructions fee.
Mr Justice Hanna accepted that the instructions fee may account for work and professional commitment while a case is waiting to be heard. He said the allowance must be assessed case by case, supported by evidence as far as practicable, and accompanied by sufficient analysis and explanation. The Taxing Master’s approach in this case did not meet that standard, the judge found.
The judge identified insufficient inquiry, analysis and explanation of the daily amount, and an allowance which, taken together, appeared wholly disproportionate to the overall instructions fee. He found both an error of principle and resulting injustice in allowing the €3,000 daily rate. The review therefore resulted in the disputed allowance being remitted, rather than replaced by a figure fixed by the High Court.