The High Court has dismissed a plaintiff’s application to review the taxation of costs claimed in a personal injuries action arising from an alleged trip and fall at or near Sarsfield House, Francis Street, Limerick.
Michael Doyle’s action named Guardian Group Limited and the Revenue Commissioners as defendants. Doyle alleged that he tripped over cracked and raised flagstones on the grounds of the second defendant’s premises on 16 February 2012. The judgment describes Guardian Group Limited as apparently having employed him as a security officer at the premises.
The costs dispute concerned two motions following a discovery order made in June 2014. The second defendant alleged Doyle had not identified the accident location as required; Doyle maintained that he had done so and that the defendant had not complied with the discovery order. The second defendant sought to dismiss the claim. Doyle’s solicitors separately sought to strike out the second defendant’s defence and obtain an attachment order over the alleged discovery failure.
Both motions were heard on 16 February 2015. The court struck out Doyle’s motion with costs against the second defendant, and struck out the second defendant’s motion with no order as to costs. A Taxing Master later allowed only costs attributable to Doyle’s motion and reduced claims that included solicitor travel from Limerick, court attendance and a €5,250 instruction fee. After further submissions following the Court of Appeal’s 2016 decision in Sheehan (a minor) v Corr, the Taxing Master assessed the reasonable professional time at seven hours and 45 minutes and set the instruction fee at €1,565.50.
Doyle applied to the High Court to review the taxation. The court explained that it could intervene only if the Taxing Master had made an error in the allowance or disallowance of costs that rendered the decision unjust, and that it should give due deference to the Taxing Master’s expertise.
The judge said the motion was routine and based on a three-page affidavit, with no indication of unusual complexity requiring Doyle’s solicitor to travel to Dublin and argue it personally. The solicitor was entitled to do so, the court said, but no good reason had been shown for requiring the second defendant to meet the additional cost. The instruction fee also covered work relating to both motions, although Doyle had been awarded costs for only one.
The judge found no error in the Taxing Master’s decision, and no injustice. The application for review was dismissed. The judgment did not determine the underlying personal injuries claim.