IELCA 10 - Kennedy & Ors -v- The Courts Service

• Year: 2018

1

[2018] IELCA 10

COURT OF APPEAL2014 No. 1281

THE HIGH COURT

2011 No. 587JR

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACTS 1961

TO 1968

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACTS 1924 TO 1959

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS SERVICES ACT 1998

BETWEEN

RONAN KENNEDY, IAN FLYNN, VINCENT MCCORMACK, PAUL KINGSTON,

JOHN G. O’DONNELL AND PHILLIP ENGLISH

APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS

AND

THE COURTS SERVICE

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

RULING ON TAXATION OF RESPONDENT’S COSTS

Introduction and Background

1.The Applicants/Appellants (hereafter referred to as the Applicants) are all solicitors

in practice in Tipperary Town and are members of the Tipperary Bar Association.

The Respondent is a body established by Statute. In issue inthese proceedings

concerned the duties and obligations on the Respondent, pursuant to s 5 of the

Courts Service Act, 1998 which, inter alia, requires the Respondent to manage the

Courts and in particular pursuant to s 5 (d) and s 5 (e) to provide, manage and

2

maintain Court buildings. The Applicants instituted the within Judicial Review

proceedings, seeking a declaration that the Respondent was in breach of its

statutory duties under the Courts Service Act, 1998 to provide, manage and

maintain Court buildings, seeking a declaration that the Respondent was in breach

of its statutory duty to provide an adequate and suitable Courthouse in Tipperary

town. The Applicants also sought an Order of Mandamus directing the Respondent

to provide, manage and maintain an adequate and suitable Courthouse in Tipperary

town.

2.The Applicants were unsuccessful before the High Court, located at [2014] IEHC

259 (11thApril 2014). By Order dated 23rdMay, 2014 (Birmingham J) granted the

Respondent an Order for 50% of its costs including reserved costs of the Judicial

Review proceedings.

3.The Applicants, appealed to the Court of Appeal and were unsuccessful, located at

[2016] IECA 201, (7thJuly 2016). The costs of the Appeal were awarded to the

Respondent by Order of the same date.

4.Two detailed and comprehensive Bills of Costs were brought in before me for

Taxation and were ultimately at hearing on 27thApril, 2018. The Applicants were

represented by Noel Roarty, Legal Costs Accountant and the Respondent was

represented by Anthony Quann, Legal Costs Accountant. Both parties made

extensive and detailed submissions. I reserved my ruling on the items remaining

in dispute between the parties, which related to the quantum of the Solicitor’s

Instructions fees, Counsel’s fees and a preliminary issue of principle relating to the

Respondent’s costs in the High Court. This is my ruling in respect of those issues.

I will refer to the submissions as being made on behalf of the Applicants and the

Respondent as the case may be.

5.The Order of the High Court recites as follows

“IT IS ORDERED that the Applicants do pay to the Respondents 50% of the costs

including reserved costs of these proceedings when taxed and ascertained.”

Applicants’ Preliminary Points

6.The Applicants initially submitted that the Taxation should be adjourned, so as to

enable an inquiry to be undertaken in the context of the Taxation, as to the nature

and extent of the billing arrangements made between the Respondent and its

solicitors, particularly relating to the Tender for legal services to be provided to the

Respondent by its solicitors on record in these proceedings, Matheson. The grounds

for the adjournment cab be broadly summarised as follows.