The High Court has refused solicitor John J. Buckley’s application to challenge a Taxing Master’s rulings on costs through judicial review. The court held that the challenge belonged in the proceedings that had ordered the taxation and that other remedies were available to Mr. Buckley.
The dispute arose from plenary proceedings brought by Mr. Buckley’s former client, Denis Doyle, in 2011. Mr. Doyle sought, among other things, an account of money he alleged was owed to him. In 2013, Charleton J. directed that ten bills of costs relating to legal work from 2000 onwards be referred to the Taxing Master to determine what, if anything, was owed by either party.
The Taxing Master issued interim rulings and a final ruling in May 2015. The High Court judgment said those rulings reduced the two bills specifically referred to taxation and also covered eight other matters. Their net effect was that more than €700,000 had been found by the Taxing Master to have been overcharged. That was the Taxing Master’s assessment; the judicial review judgment did not determine the underlying amount owed between the parties.
Mr. Buckley argued that some bills should not have been taxed because proper bills had been issued and voluntarily paid, or because bills had been agreed as part of settlements. He also argued that two bills should have been assessed on a solicitor-client basis rather than a party-and-party basis. He sought orders quashing rulings on the bills, directing a different basis of taxation, and challenging the Taxing Master’s appointment.
The High Court treated the taxation as ancillary to Mr. Doyle’s ongoing plenary case. It noted that Charleton J.’s order had allowed the parties to return to that court if difficult issues arose. Mr. Buckley did so, but Kearns P. refused his application to re-enter the matter on 1 July 2015. The court said that if Mr. Buckley disputed that decision or how it was reached, the appropriate route was an appeal, rather than a separate judicial review seeking to achieve the result refused in the plenary proceedings.
The judgment also relied on the review procedure under Order 99, rule 38 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Mr. Buckley’s counsel confirmed that he had submitted written objections to the Taxing Master, whose decision on them was still pending. If dissatisfied with that review, Mr. Buckley could apply to the High Court to review the taxation. The court found these remedies adequate and refused certiorari and mandamus.
The court also refused quo warranto, finding that no evidence had been presented to call the Taxing Master’s qualifications or appointment into question. The judgment did not decide the pending objections to the taxation.