IELCA 4 - AB Ward of Court

• Year: 2014
• Decision Date: 24 February 2014

[2014] IELCA 4

THE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF

AB DECEASED

A WARD OF COURT

The three bills of costs herein were taxed on 24 May 2013 following my ruling on the same

date.

A composite set of objections and submissions dated 24 July 2013 was lodged to which I will

refer later and subsequently amended, pursuant to my directions, whereby on 23 August 2013,

three sets of objections were filed in this office. In addition I received further written

submissions (‘the Muldowney submissions’) which relate solely to the costs arising on the

Habeas Corpus Application and the subsequent Wardship enquiry instituted by Brendan T.

Muldowney Solicitor, and conducted by way of Jury Trial before Mr. Justice de Valera. However

the earlier submissions dated 24 July 2013 do make reference to the General Costs of the

Committee and I have had regard to these also.

The Objections hearing took place on 10 December 2013.

The first Bill of Costs.

Costs of the Committee up to date of death (3 September 2008 to 14 January 2010).

Objections by the Executor of the Estate of AB deceased.

Item 61 – Instructions Fee

The basis of the objection is that the amount measured at €5250 is “disproportionate and

excessive”.

The reasons underlying this objection are as follows:

a) The ‘Claimant’ was in any event under a duty to carry out this work in accordance with

her terms of employment.

b) Part of the work relates to the estate of AB deceased and the costs should be borne

either by the Solicitors or the executrix to that estate.

c) The fee includes correspondence relating to the Habeas Corpus Application and is also

charged in a separate bill of costs.

d) The ‘reading in’ to the case by the General Solicitor overlapped with the Habeas Corpus

matter.

e) The work was administrative in nature.

The submissions in support of this objection are to be found in the document dated 22 July

2013.

An additional submission is made therein which alleges that the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland)

Act, 1871 is unconstitutional and that pending the hearing of a challenge to this Act, the

adjudication of the costs is premature.

In response, the General Solicitor asserts that any issue concerning the constitutionality of the

Lunacy Act is not a matter which a Taxing Master can consider and there could be no question

of staying the taxation process.

I have had the benefit of also hearing the oral submissions of the parties.

By Order dated 19 May 2011, the President of the High Court awarded to Margaret Molony,

General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court her costs as Committee of the estate of the

Ward.

I am bound by such Order and have no jurisdiction to put a stay thereon. No reasonable basis

for adjourning this process has been put forward.

During the course of the original taxation of these costs on 8 March 2013, Mr. Leahy Solicitor,

representing the estate of AB deceased, expressly stated that no objection was being raised to

items 1 to 60 in the bill of costs. These items specify the work which was undertaken by the

Committee during the relevant period and in respect of which the instructions fee at item 61 is

charged.

The function of the General Solicitor is referred to at para 10 of the replying submissions. In

my view there is no validity to the assertion that the General Solicitor was “in any event” under

an obligation to carry out the work. No obligation arose in this regard until the General Solicitor

was appointed Committee on 3 September 2008. It may be that the objector confuses the work

of a Committee who is also the General Solicitor, with that of the Registrar for Wards of Court.

It has long been the case that such Committee’s costs are payable out of the Ward’s estate.

The Order of the President of the High Court of 19 May 2011 so provides. My function is to

measure such costs.

I do not think it is open to the objector, at this stage, to object that part of this instructions fee

relates to the estate of AB deceased given the acceptance at the taxation that the itemised

charges were allowable.

Notwithstanding this, I have again examined the file and can find no basis for the assertion of

overlapping of charges. The fees measured relate solely to work carried out in relation to

managing the Ward’s affairs. The reference to the estate of AB deceased was made by Mr.

Muldowney, Solicitor, in correspondence and his query was dealt with. This had no bearing

whatever on the legal work relating to the subsequent extraction of Grant of Letter of

Administration which is separately charged in the bill of costs.

The work is set out in detail at the said itemised charges and explained in the preamble to

instructions fee. The fees arise on the Solicitor and Client basis.