IELCA 14 - Taylor -v- Neary

• Year: 2018
• Decision Date: 13 April 2018

1

[2018] IELCA 14

THE HIGH COURT 2011 11275 P

THE COURT OF APPEAL 2016 299

BETWEEN: KEVIN TAYLOR PLAINTIFF / APPELLANT

AND

DAMIEN NEARY DEFENDANT / RESPONDENT

RULING ON COSTS OF DEFENDANT / RESPONDENT TAXED PURSUANT TO ORDERS OF THE

HIGH COURT AND OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

1. The costs of the Defendant / Respondent, pursuant to the respective Orders of the High Court dated 25 May

2016 and of the Court of Appeal dated 30 March 2017 came before me for taxation on 22 February 2018 on

foot of a Summons to Tax dated 18 September 2017.

2. The taxation was originally listed for hearing on 16 November 2017 but had been adjourned, at the Plaintiff’s

request.

3. Mr. Padraig Kelly, Solicitor represented the Defendant / Respondent and the Plaintiff / Appellant represented

himself, although accompanied by a McKenzie friend, Mr. Gill.

4. At the commencement of the hearing the Plaintiff objected to the taxation proceeding on the basis firstly, that

the bill of costs as lodged was not valid and that a second bill of costs (containing columns for dates, figures,

narrative etc.) which, although identical with the bill originally lodged in terms of items described and

amounts claimed, did not constitute the bill in respect of which the Summons to Tax was issued.

5. I ruled against the Plaintiff. I decided to tax the bill as originally lodged. There are no statutory requirements

as to the format of a copy bill for service. The usual practice is that it is produced on plain white paper,

without columns. The requirement for bills containing columns under Order 99 rule 29 (5) is principally for

the assistance of a Taxing Master and is of no consequence to the paying party or to the quantum of the bill.

6. The second ground for adjournment advanced by the Plaintiff was that he had made a complaint to An

Garda Siochana concerning the Defendant’s solicitor and wished that complaint to be investigated prior to

my embarking on this taxation.

7. I refused that application also, on the basis that the Defendant was entitled to have the costs taxed as

ordered by both Courts and that I was obligated to comply with such Orders in the absence of a reasonable

basis being established for not so doing. The assertion that the Plaintiff had made a complaint to an Garda

Siochana against the Defendant’s solicitor, and of which the solicitor expressed himself as being entirely

unaware, could not, in any event, be reasonably considered as having any bearing or impact upon my

function to tax the costs as Ordered.

8. The Defendant’s bill of costs arose from the dismissal, firstly, of the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 9 July

2014 which was stated therein to be an Appeal from the whole of my ruling on foot of the Plaintiff’s

Objections.

9. The Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion also sought “an Order for clarity” in relation to the Judicial Review of certain

proceedings, in respect of which, it was stated, an Order had been made by Mr. Justice MacMenamin on 5

November 2011. A stay “on any costs” was sought “until the Plaintiff/Applicant has been afforded his