Supreme Court dismisses appeal against High Court refusal to review taxation of solicitor and client costs.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed Martin Horan's appeal against the High Court's refusal to review his solicitor and client costs. Horan argued the High Court erred in law and fact by failing to exercise its discretion to consider the costs orders. The Court found no error, noting the High Court correctly determined there was no sustainable case without expert evidence from a legal costs accountant.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedOrder 99, r.38(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts; A motion to review taxation of costs is refused where no sustainable case is made and no expert evidence supports the claim for a review.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
THE SUPREME COURT
Appeal No. 225/2011
Denham C.J.
MacMenamin J.
Laffoy J.
Between/
Martin Horan
Plaintiff
and
Frank O’Reilly, Michael McHale, John Joyce,
Seamus O’Brien and An Post National Lottery Limited
Defendants
Judgment of the Court delivered on the 16th day of December, 2016 by Denham C.J.
1. This is an appeal brought by Martin Horan, referred to as Mr. Horan, from the judgment and order of the High Court (Kearns P.)
dated the 14th April, 2011, and perfected on the 11th May, 2011.
2. Mr. Horan had brought a motion before the High Court requesting an order pursuant to Order 99, r.38(3) of the Rules of the
Superior Courts, seeking a review of taxation of costs. The costs in issue were solicitor and client costs incurred by Mr. Horan’s
solicitors, Crean, O’Clerigh and O’Dwyer, Solicitors, in the High Court and Supreme Court.
3. The President of the High Court held, on the 14th April, 2011, that, having read the notice of motion, the affidavit of Mr. Horan,
filed on the 3rd August, 2010, the affidavit of John O’Dwyer filed on the 17th February, 2011, and the documents and exhibits referred
to therein, and upon hearing said counsel and counsel for Crean Clerigh and O’Dwyer, Solicitors, that the motion would be refused.
4. The President refused the relief sought stating that there was no sustainable case made by Mr. Horan for him to consider. In
particular, he stated that the motion to review was incorrect, and that there was no evidence to support it by way of a legal costs
accountant, or any other expert evidence.
5. Mr. Horan has appealed the order of the High Court on the following grounds:-
“That the learned judge erred in law and in fact in failing to exercise his discretion in favour of [Mr. Horan] in considering
the orders for costs made by the Taxing Master in these proceedings”.
6. The Court has considered the papers filed on this appeal, and the oral submissions.
5. The Court is satisfied that there was no error made by the High Court. Consequently, the Court will dismiss the appeal.