The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to the rules governing review of a Taxing Master’s costs assessment, holding that the procedure was not an appeal to the same decision-maker and did not breach fair procedures.
The redacted judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McGovern on 31 July 2006, concerned costs awarded against the applicant in matrimonial proceedings. The High Court made a costs order on 6 December 2001 and the Supreme Court made a further order on 15 October 2002, both in favour of the first notice party. The costs were to be taxed if the parties could not agree.
After hearings on various dates between 14 October 2003 and 8 July 2004, Taxing Master Charles A. Moran orally decided the taxation and declined to give reasons. The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that Order 99, rule 38 of the Rules of the Superior Courts unlawfully required objections to be taken first to the Taxing Master before a High Court review could follow. He also argued that the rules created an impermissible appeal to the decision-maker against his own decision, restricted access to court and breached fair procedures. He separately challenged the failure to give reasons for the initial decision.
The respondents argued that the taxation process was not complete until a certificate was issued and signed. The judge accepted that interpretation. He said the Taxing Master’s reconsideration of objections, including the power to receive further evidence, was part of an ongoing taxation process rather than an appeal. The applicant could then seek a review by the High Court, which the judge described as the appeal.
The court also rejected the procedural fairness challenge. It found no evidence that bias arose in this case and held that the review rules did not prevent access to the courts, including through judicial review and a separate High Court review.
On reasons, the judge held that the Taxing Master was not required to give reasons for the initial assessment. Under the rule, however, a party who brings objections may require written reasons for the decision on those objections. The judge found that arrangement consistent with fair procedures.
The court held that the Rules Committee had acted within its authority, that the Taxing Master had not erred in law by declining to give reasons for the initial decision, and that the review procedure did not breach fair procedures. It refused the relief sought. The judgment did not determine the underlying amount of costs payable.