The High Court declined all reliefs sought by Ahmed Hussain in a judicial review case that had become moot after the retirement of the Taxing Master whose actions were challenged.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 17 May 2018. Hussain began the proceedings against Taxing Master Rowena Mulcahy on 23 January 2017, the same day she retired. The judgment said a new taxation process was intended to begin before a new Taxing Master, meeting the relief sought in the original judicial review without court intervention. The case had therefore become moot “through no fault of any of the parties”.
The court made no order as to costs in the moot judicial review proceedings. It said the case had become moot because of a factor outside the parties’ control and there were no significant countervailing factors.
Hussain also sought four related orders in a notice of motion issued on 13 June 2017. Two concerned carrying costs from the earlier taxation process into the new one. The judge declined them, saying the planned hearing was de novo, or a fresh taxation, with no connection to the previous hearing in costs or otherwise. The costs could not be rolled into the new process as proposed.
The other requests sought an order requiring Ireland and the Attorney General to indemnify Mulcahy for the costs of the proceedings, and, if necessary, to join them as parties for costs. The court declined both. It held that a taxing master performing a judicial function as a statutory court officer has immunity from costs. The judgment said there was no contention that Mulcahy had acted in bad faith or with impropriety, so no liability could attach to her in performing her functions, and Ireland could not be vicariously liable on that basis.
The judgment addressed only the reliefs sought in the moot proceedings and the motion. It did not determine the merits of the original challenge to the Taxing Master’s actions. The court concluded by declining all reliefs sought at that time.