Bloomer v Law Society of Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mrs Justice McGuinness |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] IESC 70 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 135 of 2000] |
| Date | 30 July 2001 |
BETWEEN
AND
[2001] IESC 70
THE SUPREME COURT
Synopsis
Administrative Law
Administrative; perception of bias; finality; fair procedures; applicants seek an order setting aside judgment and order of Supreme Court and directing rehearing of appeal the subject of that order and judgment; whether two of the judges who heard and determined appeal had links with respondents which were of such a character as to give rise to a perception of bias; whether time lapse since work done on behalf of one or other of the parties to an action is a relevant factor in distancing judges from a link with that party such as may give rise to a perception of bias; whether fact that application was not brought to seek recusal of judge but rather after a full hearing was a relevant factor in determining alleged perception of bias; whether fact that advice and advocacy given had not been in relation to issues on appeal a relevant factor in distancing judge from party; whether failure of judge to disclose matter or association that may possibly give rise to an apprehension of bias a ground in and of itself for setting aside a judgment; whether a cogent and rational link, in addition to relationship of client/counsel, had been established in instant case so as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a reasonable person.
Held: Application dismissed.
Bula Ltd. v. Tara Mines Ltd. - Supreme Court: Denham J., McGuinness J., Morris P. - 03/07/2000 - [2002] 1 IR 189
The plaintiffs had been successful in an action taken against the respondent in relation to entrance requirements for Blackhall Place. The plaintiffs were ultimately awarded most of their costs in the Supreme Court. Subsequently the fees submitted by the solicitors and counsel who acted on behalf of the plaintiffs were reduced by the taxing master. The plaintiffs appealed against this finding to the High Court. Geoghegan J held that the instruction fee of the solicitors as set by the taxing master was fair and would be affirmed as the sum of £76,000. In addition the sum allowed by the taxing master with regard to refresher fees was affirmed. The brief fee allowed to the senior counsel was however too low and would be increased from a sum of £12,600 to one of £21,000. On appeal Mrs. Justice McGuinness in the Supreme Court held that the High Court judge was correct in his conclusions regarding the figures reached. There was no reason to disturb the High Court order and the plaintiffs' appeal would be dismissed.
Citations:
LAW SOCIETY REGULATIONS 1991 REG 15
TREATY OF ROME ART 6
RSC O.99 r.37(22)(ii)
BEST V WELLCOME FOUNDATION LTD 1996 3 IR 378
COURTS & COURTS OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27
COURTS & COURTS OFFICERS ACT 1995 PART VI
COURTS & COURTS OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27(1)
COURTS & COURTS OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27(2)
COURTS & COURTS OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27(3)
SMITH V TUNNEY 1999 1 ILRM 211
TOBIN & TWOMEYS SERVICE LTD V KERRY FOODS LTD 1999 1 ILRM 428
MIN FOR FINANCE V GOODMAN 1999 3 IR 333
BULA V TARA MINES UNREP MCCRACKEN 7/3/2000
SUPERQUINN LTD V BRAY UDC 1999/23/7593
Mrs Justice McGuinness delivered the 30th day of July 2001 [nem diss]
This appeal arises from the taxation of costs in the above entitled action which was initiated in the High Court and Subsequently went on appeal to this Court. Following the Order for Costs made in this Court, to which I will refer later, all the costs went to taxation. The taxation was carried out by Taxing Master Moran. Somewhat unusually, the Taxing Master, in addition to the customary submissions by the Legal Costs Accountants on each side, was presented with oral evidence given on behalf of the plaintiffs both by Senior Counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs, Dr. White, and by the plaintiffs solicitor, Mr Denis O'Sullivan.
The Taxing Master gave his determination on the matter on 28th May 1998. Both sides carried in objections. Having considered these objections the Taxing Master gave his written review of the taxation on the 4th March 1999. The plaintiffs then applied to the High Court to review the taxation. The High Court (Geoghegan J.) carried out a review of the Master's taxation. The learned High Court judge in his reserved judgment given on 3rd December 1999 increased the amount of the brief fee for the High Court action to be paid to senior and junior counsel but otherwise confirmed the determinations of the Taxing Master. It is from the judgment of Geoghegan J. that the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.
The factual background to the proceedings is set out by the learned High Court judge in his judgment. The plaintiffs were graduates of Queen's University Belfast who had attained the degree of Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.). They sought a declaration that they were entitled to the same recognition and the same exemption from the first part of the final examination of the Law Society as was afforded to graduates of the National University of Ireland, the University of Dublin and the University of Limerick who held a primary degree in law of one of those universities or who held a primary degree partly in law and partly in another discipline. They also sought a declaration that the first and second named defendants were guilty of wrongful discrimination as regards graduates in law of Queen's University Belfast. The plaintiffs also made a claim for damages including aggravated and/or exemplary damages for conspiracy and/or breach of duty and/or breach of statutory duty and/or for alleged wrongful interference with the right asserted by some of the plaintiffs and/or breach of duty under the laws of the European Union and under the European Convention of Human Rights. The proceedings were heard in the High Court before Laffoy J. A number of issues were raised at the hearing but the only issue on which the plaintiffs were successful was in establishing to the satisfaction of the trial judge that Regulation 15 of the Law Society Regulations of 1991 (which excluded Queen's University from the exemption) was invalid as being discriminatory and contrary to Article 6 of the Treaty of Rome. Laffoy J. however refused to make a specific declaration to that effect and made an order for costs in favour of the Law Society.
The plaintiffs appealed her order to this Court. The appeal was listed for hearing but prior to the hearing, on 3rd October 1995, the Law Society announced that it had agreed to amend the relevant regulation and to extent the exemption to graduates of the Queen's University Belfast. When the appeal came before this Court, therefore, the main issue was the question of costs. The plaintiffs also sought a specific declaration that the original regulation was invalid as being contrary to Article 6 of the Treaty of Rome. In addition the plaintiffs pressed for an entitlement to damages for conspiracy. The decision of this Court was given in an ex-tempore judgment by Hamilton C.J. on the 6th February 1996. In this judgment the Court robustly rejected the plaintiffs claim for damages and all allegations of conspiracy, but allowed the appeal to the extent of making the declaration as to the invalidity of the regulation and awarding to the plaintiffs against the Law Society the costs of the High Court on the basis of an eight day hearing and limited to the issue of the invalidity of the regulation having regard to the Treaty of Rome. The plaintiffs were also awarded half the costs of the appeal but excluding any costs in connection with written submissions made to the Supreme Court. This exclusion was based inter aliaon the nature of the allegations made against the Law Society and against individual members of the Society which were contained in the said submissions. The Order for Costs made by this Court on 6th February 1996 was as follows:
"IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the said appeal insofar as it relates to costs as between the plaintiffs and the first named defendant be allowed and that the said order of the High Court be varied by setting aside the award of costs in favour of the first named defendant contained therein and by substituting in lieu thereof an order that the first named defendant do pay to the plaintiffs their costs of the action in the High Court on the basis of eight days hearing limited to the costs of determining the issue of European Law concerning the validity of Regulation 15 of the Regulations aforesaid.
And IT IS ORDERED that the first named defendants do pay to the plaintiffs one half of the costs of this appeal when taxed and ascertained but specifically disallowing any costs or fees incurred in connection with the preparation of the submission made to this Court on behalf of the plaintiffs
And By Consent IT IS ORDERED that the award of costs in favour of the second and third named defendants contained in the said order of the High Court be set aside and that there be no order as to the costs of the said appeal insofar as concerns the second and third named defendants."
The taxation of costs then proceeded as already set out above.
When the review of taxation came before Geoghegan J. in the High Court four items were in dispute, as follows:
1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doyle v Deasy & Company Ltd & Guinness (Irl) Group Ltd
...V MAXWELL WELDON & DARLEY 1997 3 IR 474 SUPERQUINN LTD V BRAY UDC 2001 1 IR 459 BLOOMER & ORS V INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND 2002 1 IR 189 AG V SLIGO CO COUNCIL 1991 1 IR 99 HAROLD V JAMESON UNREP O CAOIMH 31.7.2001 2001/11/3178 HEFFERNAN V HEFFERNAN UNREP GANNON 2.12.1974 KELLY V ......
-
DPP v Martin Conmey (No 3)
...apprehension that litigant would not have fair hearing before impartial tribunal - Bloomer v Incorporated Law Society of Ireland (No 3) [2002] 1 IR 189; Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd [2000] 4 IR 412; Corrigan v Irish Land Commission [1977] IR 317 and R (Taverner) v Justices of Tyrone [1909] ......