IELCA 5 - BM TO MG Solicitors Ruling No. 2

• Year: 2014
• Decision Date: 17 January 2014

[2014] IELCA 5

THE ESTATE OF

CM DECEASED

BM, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF

CM

TO

MG AND CO., SOLICITORS, DR

Clause (6) (1) of the Supreme Court & High Court (Fees) Order 2013, provides:

“No fee shall be payable under this Order in connection with -

a) family law proceedings,

b) matrimonial causes or matters,”

c), d) - not relevant.

The net issue which arises in relation to the taxation of the bill of costs herein is whether the

exemption to payment of Court fees at Clause (6) (1) is applicable.

The taxation of the bill of costs arose out of a dispute between the executor appointed under

the Will of the deceased client (the client) and his solicitor.

There is no doubt that the client sought and received representation by the solicitor in relation

to proceedings which were issued by the client’s wife seeking reliefs pursuant to the provisions

of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989 and the Family Law Act, 1995.

I have had the benefit of receiving written submissions from both the solicitor for the Costs and

the solicitor for the client. Both are of the opinion that the exemption is applicable herein. In

essence the solicitor for the Costs argues that the taxation of these costs constituted a

procedure which took place “in connection with family law proceedings”.

Further, that when previous Fees Orders are considered there is evidence of an intention by the

legislature to widen the scope of the exemption which would encompass a taxation of costs as

between solicitor and own client.

Finally, it is suggested that it would be unfair, at this stage, given that the exemption has been

applied in other similar cases, not to apply it here, even if I decide that it is not applicable.

The client makes broadly similar points arguing that the taxation did in fact relate to or was in

connection with a matrimonial cause or matter referred to at Clause 6 (1) (b). The client also

argues that it would be unfair to impose the Court fees at this stage.

I do not think that I can reasonably hold that the dispute between the client and his solicitor as

to the appropriate amount of the bill, is captured under Clause 6 (1) (a) as the family law

proceedings have long since been disposed of and of course the taxation of the costs only

affects one party to the said proceedings.