The High Court has dismissed Antonio Casimiro Lopes’s application to review the Taxing Master’s assessment of legal costs arising from earlier proceedings against the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The judge found no error in the assessment. The final order on the costs of the review had not yet been made.
The costs related to High Court proceedings brought by Lopes in 2007, alleging, among other things, discrimination by judges who had dealt with litigation arising from a road traffic accident in 1988. The High Court struck out those proceedings in 2008 as frivolous or vexatious and as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and awarded costs to the Minister. The Supreme Court dismissed Lopes’s appeal in 2013 and also awarded costs to the Minister.
The Taxing Master assessed costs for both sets of proceedings in 2017. For the High Court application, the Master allowed a €5,125 counsel’s brief fee and reduced the solicitor’s instruction fee from €9,500 to €8,500. For the Supreme Court appeal, the Master allowed a €6,000 solicitor’s instruction fee and €5,999 in counsel’s fees, comprising a €5,125 brief fee and €874 for written submissions. The amounts allowed total €25,624.
Lopes objected to the assessment and sought review, challenging the brief and instruction fees. His grounds included arguments about the time taken for oral submissions, records and supporting documentation, and whether the bill of costs was itemised. The judgment records that the Minister had furnished a detailed bill setting out each item claimed.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan said a review of taxation was not an appeal on the merits. It required an error in the Taxing Master’s approach and resulting injustice. He found that the Master had applied the relevant statutory provisions and legal principles and had considered the work involved, including the preparation and review of affidavits and documents. The length of oral submissions alone did not determine the fees, the judge said, since shorter submissions may require more preparation.
The court dismissed Lopes’s application. Meenan’s provisional view was that the Minister, having succeeded, should receive the costs of the review. He invited short written submissions on that issue by 13 January 2023 if either party objected, and listed the matter for final orders on 20 January 2023.