IELCA 5 - Walsh -v- Brendave Developments Ltd.

• Year: 2018
• Decision Date: 10 October 2017

1

[2018] IELCA 5

THE HIGH COURT 2011 3462P

BETWEEN PAUL WALSH PLAINTIFF

AND

BRENDAVE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED DEFENDANT

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS

Introduction and Background

1. A Bill of Costs in this matter came in for Taxation before me on foot of a Notice of

Taxation issued on the 31st of March, 2017. The Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs was Taxed on the

11th of May, 2017. The Plaintiff carried in Objections to the allowance made in respect of

the solicitor’s general instructions fee. This was claimed at €27,000 and allowed on the

Taxation of costs in the sum of €16,000. The Plaintiff’s Objections were heard before me

on the 10th of October 2017 and this is my ruling in respect thereof.

2. The background to the proceedings concerns a claim for workplace injuries caused to the

Plaintiff in the course of undertaking “slabbing” plasterboards, which required the

Plaintiff to fit and fix plasterboard sheets to wooden batons, which in turn form internal

partition walls. It was the Plaintiff’s case that he was obliged to work in a confined space

and had done so for a considerable period of time. The Plaintiff had suffered from pins

and needles and having undergone medical tests was advised in respect of his treatment

options. It was the Plaintiff’s case that he was unable to engage in any work of a manual

or physical type. For greater particularity I refer to the detailed Bill of Costs, which sets

out matters in considerable detail.

3. The Plaintiff consulted with his solicitors in June, 2010. Following authorisation being

issued from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board on 10th of November, 2010, High

Court proceedings were issued by way of Personal Injury Summons issued on the 14th of

April, 2011. The matter was met with a full Defence and a Plea of Contributory

Negligence. There was voluntary discovery of his medical records. The matter was set

down for Trial by the Defendant and after negotiations were arranged to hold settlement

talks the matter was settled in the sum of €125,000 (recited in the High Court Order as

determined on a 50:50 basis) and costs at the Law Library Dublin. It is common case

that the matter was settled well in advance of Trial.

4. The Plaintiff submits that the instructions fee allowed on the Taxation is too low and has

carried in Objections to the item pursuant to Order 99 r 38 of the RSC. The grounds of

Objection are in one discrete paragraph and state

“the Plaintiff objects to the fee allowed by the Taxing Master, as it is claimed that

same does not recompense the Plaintiff for the nature and extent of the work

undertaken in this case”.