D'Arcy v Dublin United Tramways Company (1896) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 March 1937
• Date: 12 March 1937
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

D'Arcy v. Dublin United Tramways Co., Ltd.

ELIZABETH D'ARCY

Appellant

and

THE DUBLIN UNITED TRAMWAYS COMPANY (1896), LTD.

Respondents.

Practice - Costs - Action for tort brought in High Court - Tried by Judge and jury - Judgment for £50 and costs - Action which could have been commenced in Circuit Court - No special direction given by trial Judge as to costs - Principle of taxation - Amount of costs recoverable - Rules of the High Court and Supreme Court, 1926, Or. XXVIII, r. 2 - Rules of the Circuit Court. Or XL. rr 1 and 6, Third Schedule and Appendix.

In an action for damages for tort, instituted and tried in the High Court, and heard by a Judge with a jury, the plaintiff was awarded a sum of £50. Judgment was accordingly entered for this gum with costs. No special direction as to costs, outlay, or expenses was asked for from, or given by, the trial Judge, save that the Judge directed,d payment of the Court stenographer's fees. On a motion to review the Taxing Master's taxation of the plaintiff's bill of costs as between party and party:

Held that, in the absence of any direction of the trial Judge allowing High Court costs, the Taxing Master was right in taxing the costs of such an action on the Circuit Court scale, and that it is with reference to such scale and the practice and rules thereunder that he must be guided.

Held also that where, in the Circuit Court rules, reference is made to the County Registrar as the taxing officer, and to his powers or discretion, his place is taken by the Taxing Master of the High Court in taxing costs in a High Court action to which the Circuit Court Rules are to apply; and where under the Rules the Judge is mentioned as having discretion in the matters referred to, it must be taken to mean the Judge of the High Court who presided at the trial.

Held also that, as to the question of outlay, taxable as between party and party, the only outlay allowable would be such as would be necessary if the action had been brought in the Circuit Court, and proper thereto.

Application of the Third Schedule and Appendix to the Circuit Court Rules, relating to the scale of costs and counsels' fees, considered.

Motion to review taxation.

An action, brought in the High Court by the plaintiff, Elizabeth D'Arcy, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained through the negligence of the defendants, the Dublin United Tramways Company (1896), Limited, was tried before Hanna J., sitting with a jury, on the 5th and 6th February, 1935. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed damages at £50. Judgment was accordingly entered for this sum with costs. No direction as to the costs was given, save that the trial Judge directed the plaintiff to pay the Court stenographer's, fees and to have same as part of her costs of action. The plaintiff's bill of costs, as between party and party, came before Taxing Master Kennedy for taxation on the 18th day of December, 1936. The bill consisted of forty items amounting to £31 18s. 6d. outlay, disbursements, and expenses, and £12 12s. 1d. professional charges.

The report of the Taxing Master on the taxation of the bill of costs, having stated the facts, continued as follows:—

"The solicitors for the defendant Company submitted that under Or. XXVIII, r. 2, of the Rules of the High Court and Supreme Court, 1926, and by virtue of the decision of O'Byrne J. in the case of Hudson v. Dublin Corporation(1)on the interpretation of this Rule, the plaintiff's right to recover costs was, limited to the sum of £8 2s. 0d., the appropriate Circuit Court costs for recovery of £50 in tort in the Circuit Court. In addition, the defendants' solicitors conceded that plaintiff should have the sum of £8 8s. 0d. her fees paid to counsel.

The plaintiff's solicitor submitted that I should have regard to r. 17 of Or. XL of the Rules of the Circuit Court made under the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, which provides that 'the costs set forth in the scales in the Third Schedule shall in every instance be exclusive of and in addition to all actual and necessary outlay,' and allow proper and necessary outlay in the High Court proceedings not expressly provided for in the Circuit Court costs schedule, and also witnesses expenses and the Court stenographer's fee.

I adopted the submission of the defendant's solicitors and measured the plaintiff's costs at the aforesaid sums of £8 2s. 0d. professional charges and £8 8s. 0d. counsel's fee.

On the 1st day of January...