The High Court ruled that four judicial review applications arising from delays in taxing costs in medical negligence cases were moot. It declined to determine further disputes raised by the former Taxing Master, finding no exceptional public interest or other reason to hear them after the requested substantive relief had fallen away.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice White on 16 November 2017, concerned applications brought by James O’Regan, Michael O’Driscoll, Nicola Lambert and Louise McCutcheon. The first three sought orders requiring the Taxing Master to complete taxations of costs awarded in their medical negligence proceedings. Those taxations were completed in October and November 2015. McCutcheon’s taxation remained unfinished when the court heard the applications in March 2017, but the first respondent had ceased to hold the office of Taxing Master.
The applicants said the cases were moot because the first three taxations had been completed and the former Taxing Master could no longer complete the fourth. The former Taxing Master disputed that position, arguing that outstanding issues should still be heard, including questions about solicitors’ global fees, alleged delay and a Taxing Master’s ability to recuse themselves.
Justice White examined earlier hearings in 2015 and 2016. He found that the court had not previously ruled that the first three cases were moot, and that the former Taxing Master had not accepted that only costs remained in those cases. The court therefore considered the mootness question itself.
The judge concluded that the main relief sought in the first three cases—orders to secure taxation—had been achieved. In McCutcheon’s case, the former Taxing Master no longer had the statutory function needed to provide that relief. The court could not require the applicants to pursue declarations they no longer wished to seek.
The judge said the proposed legal questions about taxation methods would be better addressed in a review of an actual costs order, rather than in judicial review proceedings without a specific bill of costs before the court. He also found that existing decisions addressed the legal principles concerning delay, and that the recusal question did not have the necessary public importance to justify proceeding with moot cases.
The court held that all four applications were moot and that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a hearing of the remaining disputes. It did not determine the costs of the judicial review proceedings. Justice White said the parties would need to make submissions on costs, including the propriety of bringing the applications, the allegations made and the conduct of both sides.