D.M.P.T v Taxing Master Charles A Moran and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice McGovern |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] IEHC 263 |
| Date | 31 July 2006 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [No. 961 JR/2004] |
[2006] IEHC 263
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
RSC O.99 r38
RSC O.99 r38(1)
RSC O.99 r38(2)
RSC O.99 r38(3)
COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S36
COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S68
COURTS OF JUSTICE (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S14
COURTS OF JUSTICE (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S48
LYNCH, STATE v BALLAGH 1986 IR 203
O'FLAHERTY, STATE v O'FLOINN 1954 IR 295
THOMPSON v CURRY 1970 IR 61
RAINEY v DELAP 1988 IR 470
CONSTITUTION ART 15.2.1
MCENIRY v FLYNN (TAXING MASTER) & LENNON HEATHER & CO UNREP MCCRACKEN 6.5.1998 1998/25/9749
CASTLEISLAND CATTLE BREEDING SOCIETY v MIN FOR SOCIAL & FAMILY AFFAIRS 2004 4 IR 150
SOCIAL WELFARE (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1993 S263
CORRIGAN v IRISH LAND COMMISSION 1977 IR 317
ANHEUSER BUSCH v CONTROLLER OF PATENT DESIGNS & TRADE MARKS 1987 IR 329
Practice and procedure - Taxation of costs - Review of taxation - Whether appeal - Whether Superior Courts Rules Committee acting ultra vires in making rule - Whether taxing master erred in law in failing to give reasons for decision - Whether breach of fair procedures in review of taxation - Rules of the Superior Courts, O 99, r 38
Order 99, r 38 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides, inter alia, that “(1) Any party who is dissatisfied with the allowance…by the taxing master of…any items…may, before the certificate is signed…deliver…objections…and…apply to the taxing master to review the taxation in respect of the same. The taxing master may…pending the consideration of such objections an interim certificate of taxation…Such further certificate as may be necessary shall be issued by the taxing master after his decision upon such objections. (2) Upon such application the taxing master shall reconsider and review his taxation upon such objections and he may receive further evidence in respect thereof, and, if so required by any party, he shall state in writing the grounds and reasons of his decision thereon…(3) Any party who is dissatisfied with the decision of the taxing master as to any items which have been objected to as aforesaid…may…apply to the court for an order to review the taxation…” The applicant wished to contest the ruling of the taxing master by way of appeal to the High Court but claimed that he was constrained by the provision of O 99, r 38 of the Rules of the Superior Courts which required him to first make application to the taxing master by bringing objections. He claimed that the Superior Courts Rules Committee acted ultra vires in making O 99, r 38 and that the taxing master breached fair procedures in failing to give reasons for his decision on requests being made therefor.
Held by Mr Justice McGovern in refusing the relief sought that the words in O 99, r 38 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the fact that the taxing master had power to receive further evidence on the review of taxation were indicative of an ongoing process that had not been completed and which was to be distinguished from an appeal. The Superior Courts Rules Committee were therefore not precluded from conferring the procedure of review of taxation upon the taxing master. There was no duty to provide reasons at an interim stage of a decision making process.
Reporter: P.C.
This judgment is circulated in a redacted form to avoid identification of the parties
This is an application for judicial review pursuant to an order of the High Court made on the 3rd November, 2004, giving leave to apply for the reliefs set forth therein and on the grounds specified in the said order.
Matrimonial proceedings took place between the Applicant and the first named Notice Party following which orders for costs were made against the Applicant in favour of the first named Notice Party on the 6th December, 2001, by the High Court and on the 15th October, 2002, by the Supreme Court. These orders required the Applicant to pay costs to the first named Notice Party such costs to be taxed in default of agreement. The costs were taxed before the first named Respondent following a hearing conducted on various dates between the 14th October, 2003, and the 8th July, 2004. On the 8th July, 2004, the Taxing Master made a decision by way of oral pronouncement and declined to give reason. The Applicant wishes to contest the ruling of the Taxing Master by way of appeal to the High Court but claims he is constrained by the provision of O. 99 r. 38 of the Rules of the Superior Courts which require him to first make application to the Taxing Master by way of bringing in objections. He says that the review of taxation provided for under O. 99 r. 38 of the Rules of the Superior Courts is in effect an appeal and he objects to the Taxing Master being involved in what he claims is an appeal against the order of the Taxing Master.
Part V of O. 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts deals with the review of taxation. Order 99 r. 38 (1) to (3) provide as follows:
2 "38.(1) Any party who is dissatisfied with the allowance or disallowance by the Taxing Master of the whole or part of any items (including any special allowance) may, before the certificate is signed, but not later than fourteen days after the completion of the adjudication by the allowance or disallowance of the entire of the items in the bill of costs deliver to the other party interested therein, and carry in before the Taxing Master his objections in writing to such allowance or disallowance, specifying therein by a list in a short and concise form the items, or parts thereof, objected to, and the grounds and reasons for such objections, and may thereupon apply to the Taxing Master to review the taxation in respect of the same. The Taxing Master may, if he shall think fit, and upon the application of the party entitled to the costs issue pending the consideration of such objections an interim certificate of taxation for or on account on [sic] the remainder of the items in the bill to which no objection has been taken and also for that part of the bill of costs in dispute which the Taxing Master may in his discretion consider reasonable. Such further certificate as may be necessary shall be issued by the Taxing Master after his decision upon such objections.
(2) Upon such application the Taxing Master shall reconsider and review his taxation upon such objections, and he may receive further evidence in respect thereof, and, if so required by any party, he shall state in writing the grounds and reasons of his decision thereon, and any special facts or circumstances relating thereto. The Taxing Master may, if he thinks fit, tax the costs of such objections and add them to or deduct them from any sum payable by or to any party to the taxation.
(3) Any party who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Taxing Master as to any items which have been objected to as aforesaid or with the amount thereof, may within twenty-one days from the date of the determination of the hearing of the objections or such other time as the Court or the Taxing Master may allow, apply to the court for an order to review the taxation as to the same items and the Court may thereupon make such order as may seem just. The Taxing Master may if he thinks fit on the application of the party entitled to the costs pending the determination of the review by the Court issue a certificate of taxation or a second interim certificate of taxation concerning any items no longer in dispute other than those specified in the notice of motion to review. All interim certificates of the Taxing Master shall be final and conclusive as to all matters which shall not have been objected to in manner aforesaid and save as provided by this rule, the Taxing Master shall not be at liberty, after a certificate is signed, to review his taxation or amend his certificate, except to correct a clerical or manifest error before process for recovery or payment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.M.P.T. v Moran
...erred in law in failing to give reasons for his initial decision on taxation. The High Court (McGovern J.) rejected these arguments (see [2006] IEHC 263). The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. Held by the Supreme Court (Murray, Hardiman, O'Donnell, Laffoy and Dunne JJ.), in allowing ......