Dawson v Irish Brokers Association

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Keane C.J.
• Judgment Date: 08 May 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] IESC 36
• Date: 08 May 2002

[2002] IESC 36

THE SUPREME COURT

Keane C.J.

Murphy J.

Hardiman J.

259/01

DAWSON v. IRISH BROKERS ASSOCIATION

BETWEEN

ALBERT DAWSON AND DUDLEY DAWSON TRADING AS A E DAWSON AND SONS

PLAINTIFFS

AND

IRISH BROKERS ASSOCIATION

DEFENDANT

Citations:

HENEHAN V AIB PLC UNREP FINLAY 19.10.1984 1985/2/279

LONDON SCOTTISH BENEFIT SOCIETY V CHORLEY 1884 13 QBD 872

BUCKLAND V WATTS 1970 1 QB 27

COURT & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27

LITIGANTS IN PERSON (COSTS & EXPENSES) ACT 1975

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT O.62 r28(a)

Synopsis:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Costs

Litigation - Recovery of costs - Whether lay litigants entitled to recover costs - Whether determinations of Taxing Master correct - Whether refusal to allow costs unjust (259/2001 - Supreme Court - 8/5/2002) - [2002] 2 ILRM 210

Dawson v Irish Brokers Association

Facts: The plaintiffs were insurance brokers who were successful in their proceedings against the defendants. The plaintiffs were awarded costs of the action and had appeared at their case as lay litigants. In the High Court Kelly J declined to award the plaintiffs the costs of the preparatory work done by them on the basis that they had conducted the litigation in person. In addition the High Court had set aside fees awarded to a firm of solicitors who had advised the plaintiffs but were not on record for them. The plaintiffs appealed these determinations.

Held by the Supreme Court (Keane CJ delivering judgment; Murphy J and Hardiman J agreeing) in dismissing the appeal. It might be thought unjust that a lay litigant was unable to recover costs however that was a matter for the legislature. Only legal costs that a court could measure were allowed. The High Court judge had correctly disallowed the costs awarded in respect of the solicitors who had advised the plaintiffs but were not on record for them.

Keane C.J.

(nem diss)

1 These proceedings have a lengthy history which, for the purpose of this judgment, can be briefly summarised. The plaintiffs are insurance brokers and the action was brought in respect of an alleged defamation of them by the defendants. There were four separate trials of the proceedings in the High Court before a judge and jury. The last of the four-presided over by Kelly J - resulted in a verdict in favour of the plaintiffs and an award of damages of £135,000. The plaintiffs, who were awarded the costs of the proceedings, appeared in person at that trial, in the subsequent taxation of costs before a taxing master, in a motion to review the taxation (again before Kelly J) and in the present appeal to this court from the judgment and order of the High Court on that review.

2 Two issues arose on the hearing of the appeal to this court. The first was whether the learned High Court judge was correct in law in upholding the determination of the Taxing Master that the plaintiffs, conducting the litigation as they had done in person, were not entitled to recover costs on the same basis as a solicitor for preparatory work undertaken by them prior to the trial. The second issue was whether he was correct in setting aside the determination of the Taxing Master that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover from the defendants the sum of £7,000 in respect of fees for advice furnished to them by a firm of solicitors at a stage when they were not on record in the proceedings.

3 While those were the only two issues of any substance before the High Court also, the plaintiffs - as is clear from the comprehensive extempore judgment delivered by the High Court judge - attempted to introduce on the hearing of the motion before him what he described as "serious and scurrilous statements" concerning a wide range of people, including members of the Government, a professional institution, barristers, solicitors and a number of High Court judges, including the then President of the High Court and the trial judge himself. The plaintiff also attempted to introduce the same material on the hearing of the appeal in this court, despite frequent reminders from members of the court that the court was solely concerned with the appeal from the judgment and order of the learned High Court judge. In the light of what this court heard from the first named plaintiff on the oral hearing, I have to agree with the conclusion of the learned trial judge that, unfortunately, in the case of these plaintiffs,

"Obsession has replaced reason and invective has replaced argument."

4 I turn now to the first of the two issues that arose on the appeal. The plaintiffs in the bill of costs taxed by the taxing master sought to recover fees at a charge out rate of £140 per hour in respect of the preparatory work carried out by them in preparation for the trial. That would result in a charge of £355,675 and a further sum of £140,000 was claimed in respect of unrecorded time said to have been spent on the case, amounting to a total of approximately £500,000. It is not in dispute that the first-named plaintiff was allowed on taxation the sum of £300 per day and the second-named plaintiff the sum of £100 in respect of their attendance in court at the trial.

5 The Taxing Master in his report...