Antonio Casimiro Lopes v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Charles Meenan
• Judgment Date: 16 December 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 692
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2007 2370 P]

Between:

Antonio Casimiro Lopes

Plaintiff

and

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Defendant

[2022] IEHC 692

[2007 2370 P]

THE HIGH COURT

Costs – Taxation – Fees – Plaintiff seeking to review a decision of the Taxing Master and his rulings on taxation in respect of the costs of proceedings – Whether the Taxing Master applied the correct statutory provisions and legal principles

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Lopes, brought proceedings against the defendant, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 26 March 2007, alleging inter alia discrimination on the part of a “state body”, namely the High Court and the Supreme Court judges who at various times had dealt with litigation brought by him arising out of a road traffic accident which occurred on 11 December 1988. By a notice of motion dated 29 June 2007, the defendant, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, sought an order pursuant to O. 19 r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts striking out the plaintiff’s proceedings as being frivolous and/or vexatious and as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. In the first instance, that application was in the High Court on 4 June 2008. The High Court ordered that the plaintiff’s action be struck out and the costs of the proceedings were awarded to the defendant. By notice of appeal dated 10 July 2008, the plaintiff appealed the decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court. The matter came on for hearing on 12 November 2013 and the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. The costs of the appeal were awarded to the defendant. The costs of both the High Court application and subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court were taxed before the Taxing Master on 11 October 2017. In his ruling, the Taxing Master allowed counsel’s brief fee in full as claimed being €5,125 and he reduced the solicitor’s instruction fee claimed from €9,500 to €8,500. In relation to the Supreme Court fees, the Taxing Master allowed the instruction fee as claimed being €6,000 and counsel’s fee in the sum of €5,999 being a brief fee of €5,125 and a fee for written legal submissions of €874. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the rulings made by the Taxing Master and on or about 30 January 2018 he raised objections to the rulings. In support of his objections, the plaintiff lodged grounds of appeal against the Taxing Master’s decision concerning the High Court proceedings only. In an affidavit in support of that application, the plaintiff set out some nine grounds of appeal.

Held by Meenan J that no error could be identified on the part of the Taxing Master in reaching the decision on the amount of both the instruction fee and the brief fee in respect of the High Court application and subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court; the Taxing Master applied the correct statutory provisions and legal principles. Turning to the grounds put forward by the plaintiff in his grounding affidavit, Meenan J held that: (1) the principles set out in Sheehan v Corr [2017] 3 IR 252 were followed by the Taxing Master; (2) instruction fees and brief fees cannot be calculated on the time a submission takes to make in court; (3) the Taxing Master in reaching his decisions looked, in detail, at the amounts claimed for instruction fees and brief fees; (4) he had dealt with this at (3) above; (5) he had dealt with this at (2) above; (6) the bill of costs was exhibited in the replying affidavit of Mr Minogue, the Chief State Solicitor’s Office; (7) this ground was based on the plaintiff’s misconception that the Supreme Court decision in Sheehan v Corr introduced new principles for the taxation and review of taxation of costs; (8) this ground was a criticism of an alleged lack of documentation which he had already dealt with; and (9) the decisions of the Taxing Master and the reasons for it were clearly in the public domain.

Meenan J dismissed the plaintiff’s application. Meenan J’s provisional view was that the defendant was entitled to an order for costs.

Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Charles Meenan delivered on the 16th day of December 2022

Introduction

1 In these proceedings the plaintiff, on foot of a notice of motion dated 17 May 2019, seeks to review a decision of the Taxing Master of 29 April 2019 and his rulings on taxation in respect of the costs of proceedings in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Background

2 The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant on 26 March 2007, alleging inter alia discrimination on the part of a “state body”, namely the High Court and the Supreme Court judges who at various times had dealt with litigation brought by him arising out of a road traffic accident which occurred on 11 December 1988.

3 By a notice of motion dated 29 June 2007, the defendant sought an order pursuant to O.19 r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) striking out the plaintiff's proceedings as being frivolous and/or vexatious and as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. In the first instance, this application was in the High Court on 4 June 2008. The High Court ordered that the plaintiff's action be struck out and the costs of the proceedings were awarded to the defendant.

4 By notice of appeal dated 10 July 2008, the plaintiff appealed the decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court. The matter came on for hearing on 12 November 2013 and the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. The costs of the appeal were awarded to...