Doyle v Deasy & Company Ltd & Guinness (Irl) Group Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Aindrias Ó Caoimh |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] IEHC 617 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 21 March 2003 |
[2003] IEHC 617
THE HIGH COURT
Between:
Citations:
GALLAGHER (A MINOR) V STANLEY & ANOR UNREP KEARNS 23.32001 2001/10/2697
BEST V WELLCOME FOUNDATION LTD (NO 3) 1996 3 IR 378
COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27(3)
COMPETITION ACT 1991 SCH PAR 1(A)(1)
COMPETITION (AMDT) ACT 1996 S9
AG V SIMPSON 1963 IR 329
TREASURY SOLICITOR V REGESTER 1978 2 AER 920
MIN FOR FINANCE V GOODMAN 1999 3 IR 333
SPRING & DESMOND V MIN FINANCE UNREP SMYTH 29.5.2000 2000/17/6321
COMPETITION ACT 1991 S4
SMYTH V TUNNEY 1993 1 IR 451
RSC O.99 r10(2)
RSC O.99 r37(18)
MCCORMICK SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: DEFINING A NEW APPROACH TO ADMISSABITILY 1982 67 IOWA L REV 879
MALTBY V FREEMAN & CO 1978 1 WLR 431
CHANELLE VETERINARY LTD V PFIZER (IRL) LTD 1998 1 ILRM 161 1999 1 IR 365
COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS 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 BREEN 1978 ILRM 63
TOBIN & TWOMEY SERVICES LTD V KERRY FOODS LTD 1999 1 ILRM 428
COMPETITION ACT 1991 S6
SMYTH V TUNNEY (NO 2) 1999 1 ILRM 211
BLOOMER & ORS V INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND (NO 2) 2000 1 IR 383
RSC O.99 r28
COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27(1)
COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27(2)
RSC O.99 r37(22)(ii)
DUNNE V O'NEILL 1974 IR 180
COMPETITION ACT 1991 S4
TREATY OF ROME ART 85
TREATY OF ROME ART 81
Synopsis:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Taxation of costs
Solicitors - Litigation - Principles of taxation - Whether allowances made by Taxing Master unjust - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 - Courts Act, 1981 - Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995 (1997/15289P - O Caoimh J - 21/3/2003)
Doyle v Deasy and Company Ltd
The plaintiff had initiated proceedings in the High Court for damages for personal injury. The claim also included alleged breaches of competition law. The proceedings were settled and the defendants undertook to pay the plaintiff’s costs. The plaintiff’s costs were assessed by the Taxing Master and the defendants issued proceedings contending that the Taxing Master had erred in his taxation of costs. A sum of £145,000 was allowed for the plaintiff solicitor’s instruction fee and £22,000 was allowed as the brief fee for senior counsel. It was submitted that the plaintiff’s case was not one of great complexity and was essentially one that the plaintiff was subject to unreasonable pressure at work. In addition it was contended that the Taxing Master had erred in principle in holding that there were no comparable cases and had failed to apply the applicable law in relation to comparator cases.
Held by Ó Caoimh J in reducing the amount of costs. The Taxing Master had erred in rejecting comparative evidence and erred in estimating the complexity of the plaintiff’s case. The allegations raised in the case regarding anti-competitive practices did not raise issues of great complexity. Comparator cases were a valuable guide to the assessment of costs and the Taxing Master was in error in rejecting comparisons. The solicitor’s instruction fee would be remitted to another Taxing Master for assessment. The brief fee would be reduced to £15,750.
Judgment of Mr. Justice Aindrias Ó Caoimh delivered the 21st March, 2003.
This is a review of taxation from a determination of Taxing Master Flynn made on the 27th June, 2001, on a hearing of objections before him on 19th February, 2001, following a ruling by him in the taxation of the costs of the plaintiff as against the defendants on 31st July, 2000.
The items that are in dispute are as follows:
(a) The plaintiff solicitor's instruction fee which while marked at £205,000 was taxed at £145,000 and allowed on review at the same level, and
(b) The brief fee for senior counsel which while marked at £31,500 was taxed at £22,000 and confirmed on review by the Taxing Master.
The plaintiff's claim was instituted by plenary summons issued in December, 1997 for damages for personal injury together with injunctive relief.
It is stated that the claim in essence was one in which the plaintiff alleged to have been employed by the first defendant was mistreated at work and in particular compelled to engage in unlawful activity in which it was alleged the defendants engaged in consort. It was alleged that the plaintiff was required as part of his employment to engage in an illegal cartel as a result of which he suffered strains and stresses at work and that he was affected psychologically and psychiatrically as a result.
In January, 1999, the plaintiff caused an amended statement of claim to be delivered to include pleas of aggravated and exemplary damages.
After an exchange of pleadings, including a full denial of the plaintiff's claim, the proceedings were ultimately settled on terms between the parties, which terms were confidential, save those in relation to costs and in this regard the settlement was on the basis that the defendants undertook to pay the plaintiff's costs to include reserved costs and such costs were to include the costs of two senior counsel.
Following the taxation of the costs herein the Taxing Master delivered his ruling and thereafter objections were carried in and the Taxing Master delivered a written ruling.
It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that the Taxing Master erred in his approach to the taxation and that he acted in an erroneous manner in giving his determinations. In particular it is submitted that the Taxing Master overstated the complexity of the action and the burden on the legal advisors. It is submitted that he consciously chose not to approach the taxation of costs in the manner mandated by judgments of this Court.
Counsel submits that the Taxing Master chose to criticise in insulting terms the judgment of Kearns J. in the case of Gallagher v. Stanley & Anor. (Unreported, High Court, Kearns J., 23 rdMarch, 2001) and that he characterises as questionable the judgment of the High Court in the case of Best v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. (No 3) [1996] 3 I.R. 378 and in particular the comparative method of analysis.
It is submitted that this led the Taxing Master into error and that in the consideration of the relevance of comparative cases the allowances made by the Taxing Master were wholly excessive to the point of being unjust.
Particular reference is made to s. 27 (3) of the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995(“the Act of 1995”) which provides:
"(3) The High Court may review a decision of a Taxing Master of the High Court and the Circuit Court may review a decision of a County Registrar exercising the powers of a Taxing Master of the High Court made in the exercise of his or her powers under this section, to allow or disallow any costs, charges, fees or expenses provided only that the High Court is satisfied that the Taxing Master, or the Circuit Court is satisfied that the County Registrar, has erred as to the amount of the allowance or disallowance so that the decision of the Taxing Master or the County Registrar is unjust."
It is submitted that the allowances made in relation to the solicitor's instruction fee do not bear scrutiny in any analysis and that in any event on the Taxing Master's own analysis he erred as the essential burden was on counsel rather than on the solicitor.
On behalf of the defendants this Court is asked to substitute for the allowances of the Taxing Master, an instruction fee of £48,000 with a brief fee for senior counsel in the sum of £15,750, or otherwise to reduce the allowances to a figure considered just or failing this to remit the matter to taxation before another Taxing Master.
It is submitted that in essence the complaint made by the plaintiff in his claim is that the employer made it impossible for him to perform his duties and difficult, if not impossible, for him to reach targets and that personnel from the second defendant were exercising control over the first defendant as a result of which the plaintiff suffered stress.
In the initial statement of claim it was pleaded, inter alia,that the defendants had acted negligently and in breach of duty to the plaintiff and it was pleaded that the first defendant had acted in breach of its contract of employment with the plaintiff and that the second defendant had wrongfully and unlawfully procured the first defendant's breach of contract and that the defendants had conspired in the negligence and breach of contract and breach of duty alleged.
The plaintiff alleged that he and the financial controller of the first defendant took over the day to day management and control of the general operations of the first defendant subject to part-time supervision by a person believed to be a servant or agent of the second defendant. The statement of claim contains a plea that without consulting or informing him the defendants caused and occasioned, or permitted the installation of covert staff surveillance video cameras on the defendant's premises which cameras he states were discovered by staff members who went on strike. It is further pleaded that it was later discovered that audio "bugging" equipment had been installed on the first defendant's sales representatives” canteen for the purpose of carrying out covert surveillance on members of staff who reported directly to the plaintiff. It is pleaded that this equipment was installed without the plaintiff being informed or consulted.
The plaintiff pleads that following discovery of the bugging device the defendants imperilled and damaged the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landers v Judge Patwell & DPP
...... UNREP TAXING MASTER 14.12.1998 (EX TEMPORE)DOYLE v DEASY & CO LTD & GUINNESS (IRL) GROUP LTD UNREP ...in Doyle v Deasy & Company who, responding to the criticism of the judgment ......