IELCA 2 - Ashlynn Hempenstall -v- Dublin City Council & Ors.

• Year: 2012
• Decision Date: 05 July 2012

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW 2010 NO. 227 JR

[2012] IELCA 2

BETWEEN ASHLYNN HEMPENSTALL APPLICANT

AND

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL, IRELAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

AND

THE HUMANS RIGHTS COMMISSION NOTICE PARTY

RULING IN RELATION TO INSTRUCTIONS FEE AND FEES OF COUNSEL.

The Applicant’s costs herein arise out of the hearing of an application, by way of Judicial

Review seeking declaratory reliefs that Section 62 of the Housing Act 1966 is incompatible

with Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and with the

provisions of the Constitution under Articles 41.1, 40.3 and 43 thereof. In addition

Orders of Certiorari setting aside a District Court Summons together with an Order of

Prohibition restraining the first named Respondent from seeking to enforce the summons

which had been issued pursuant to Section 62 of the Housing Act 1966 were also sought

together with the other reliefs as set forth in the notice of motion. The costs which were

awarded to the Applicant are limited in scope and nature by virtue of the Order of the

High Court made on 19 October 2010 as follows:

“IT IS ORDERED THAT the Respondents do pay to the Applicant herein costs in these

proceedings in relation to the Ex Parte Application made on the first day of March 2010

when taxed and ascertained.“

The Applicant’s bill of costs was listed for taxation before me on 18 May 2012, Mr. T.

Quann representing the Applicant, instructed by Chris Ryan Solicitors and Mr. Stephen

McDaid Legal Costs Accountant representing the first named Respondent which body it

appears is indemnifying all Respondents in regard to costs.

Having heard the submissions on behalf of the parties I reserved ruling in relation to the

instructions fee and the fees of counsel.

At the commencement of the taxation Mr. Quann intimated that the Applicant’s solicitor

had prepared an estimate of the time applicable to the case, confined to the ex parte

application.

Mr. McDaid confirmed that he had considered the Applicant’s solicitor’s file and papers

and advised me that there were few attendance notes thereon.

Given the limited Order for costs which had been made in favour of the Applicant taken

together with the instructions fee which is claimed at €22,500, I requested Mr. Quann to

open the file and take me through, on a step by step basis, the work which had been

undertaken herein.