The High Court reduced the instructions fee allowed to the plaintiff’s solicitors in a settled medical negligence case from €340,000 to €321,000, setting aside a €19,000 increase for work in 2015 while leaving a €26,000 increase for work before settlement in place.
The case had settled in July 2017 for €15 million, an apology and costs. The plaintiff, a minor with severe and permanent disabilities, had sued through his mother and next friend. Liability was conceded in February 2016, and the settlement was approved by the High Court in July 2017.
The plaintiff’s solicitor claimed an instructions fee of €445,000. At the initial taxation in February 2019, the Taxing Master allowed €295,000. Following the plaintiff’s objections, the Master raised that figure to €340,000 in January 2020, increasing the allowances for two periods of work.
The defendants sought a High Court review under section 27(3) of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995. They argued that the Master had not adequately explained the additional €45,000, and that the work and the case’s value did not justify the increase. The plaintiff’s solicitor said the Master could reconsider the original assessment on the objections, without new evidence, and had explained the increases.
Mr Justice Barr found that the €19,000 increase for May to December 2015 was unjust. The solicitor’s time records were detailed, and the court found that the Master already had a full account of the work at the original taxation. The judgment also noted that much of the recorded work in that period involved the new firm reading in to the file after taking over from the previous solicitors. The Master had not identified what work he had left out of his earlier assessment to justify the increase. The court set it aside.
The court upheld the increase for January to July 2017. It found that the period involved intense preparation for settlement negotiations, including updated expert reports and a significant dispute over life expectancy. The defendants’ expert estimated the plaintiff would live to about 23; the plaintiff’s expert estimated he would live to about 34. The court accepted that this disagreement could materially affect the claim’s value and that the negotiations lasted 13 hours.
The court concluded that the resulting total fee of €321,000 was not unreasonable or unjust. It did not make a final order in the judgment: it invited written submissions within 14 days on the order to follow and on the costs of the review proceedings.