The High Court dismissed an appeal over a €276,000 solicitor’s instruction fee allowed in a medical negligence case, finding that errors by the Taxing Master did not warrant changing the amount.
The review concerned the costs of proceedings brought for Isabelle Sheehan, an infant represented by her mother and next friend, Catherine Sheehan, against consultant obstetrician David Corr. The claim alleged negligence in the management of the mother’s antenatal care. Negligence was admitted in the defence, but causation remained disputed until the defendants conceded it in September 2011. The case then proceeded as an assessment of damages and settled on an interim basis after a five-day High Court hearing.
The solicitor’s instruction fee claimed was €485,000. The defendants had offered €250,000. Following taxation and objections, the Taxing Master increased the allowance to €276,000. The plaintiff challenged the assessment, arguing that it undervalued the case’s complexity, the work and time involved, the attendance of two senior solicitors, and relevant comparator cases. She also alleged that the Taxing Master relied too heavily on the defendants’ proposed methodology.
Kearns P. said the Taxing Master was entitled to distinguish an unusual medical condition from additional complexity in preparing the case. The court accepted that causation had remained a significant issue, but found the plaintiff had not shown that the condition required additional work of the kind claimed. It also upheld the decision to allow for one senior solicitor at trial and an assistant, rather than a second senior solicitor.
The court noted that detailed time records were kept only for the final months of the case. The plaintiff’s estimates of total hours varied from 1,000 to 1,200, and the records included 51 hours of double entries. The Taxing Master could use the estimates and records to cross-check an assessment based on the nature and extent of the work, the judge said. Comparator fees also could not replace an examination of the work in the case being taxed.
The judge identified some errors in the Taxing Master’s rulings, including an unsupported comment about the solicitors’ overheads. But the court concluded that none made the allowance unjust or justified interference. It dismissed the appeal.
Separately, the judgment addressed the economic downturn and professional fees. Kearns P. recommended that the Taxing Master consider seeking an economist’s annual report on changes in professional remuneration, as guidance for future assessments. This was a recommendation; the court did not direct a particular reduction in this case.