The High Court has rejected the Minister for Defence and the Attorney General’s application to review the taxation of costs in an army deafness claim settled for €9,500.
The proceedings were brought by Brian Kelly in 2001. They were listed for hearing in the High Court on 22 June 2005, when the parties settled. By consent, the court ordered that the plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs, be taxed, with the defendants to pay them on the Circuit Court scale once assessed. The action was struck out of the list, and the court certified for senior counsel.
The Taxing Master later ruled that section 17(3) of the Courts Act 1981 did not apply. That provision limits recoverable costs in certain High Court actions where damages recovered are within a specified range. The defendants objected, but the Taxing Master rejected their objections. The costs were taxed at €11,142.
The defendants asked the High Court to review that ruling, arguing that the €9,500 settlement fell within the statutory range and that the plaintiff’s recoverable costs should therefore be capped at €9,500. The plaintiff’s position was that the action had ended by agreement between the parties, not been determined by the High Court following a hearing.
Ms Justice Dunne considered whether an action compromised by the parties had been “determined in the High Court” for the purposes of section 17(3). She concluded that, read in the context of section 17 as a whole, the phrase referred to an action determined after a court hearing. She said the section was intended to address cases in which a plaintiff pursued a claim to a hearing and obtained a damages order within the statutory limits.
The judge also noted that settlements avoid hearings and save time and costs, and that the value of a case cannot invariably be measured by the amount accepted in a compromise. She held that the statutory provision did not apply to this settlement.
The court refused the defendants’ application to overturn the Taxing Master’s decision and affirmed the ruling. The judgment did not alter the terms of the 2005 consent order or make a new costs assessment.