IELCA 7 - Daniel O'Neill -v- President of Circuit Court & MIBI

• Year: 2012
• Decision Date: 03 July 2012

THE HIGH COURT [2012] IELCA 7

JUDICIAL REVIEW 2006 NO.1314 JR

BETWEEN DANIEL O’NEILL APPLICANT

AND

THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT RESPONDENT

AND

THE MOTOR INSURERS’ BUREAU OF IRELAND NOTICE PARTY

RULING ON INSTRUCTIONS AND BRIEF FEES.

By Order dated 6 November 2006 the Applicant herein was granted leave to apply for an Order

of Certiorari by way of Judicial Review quashing the decision and Order of the Respondent

pronounced in open Court on 10 October 2006 in proceedings entitled “Circuit Court Record No.

2001/11348 Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland Plaintiff and Daniel O’Neill Defendant “(“the

proceedings”).

Following service of the notice of motion and statement of grounds of application together with

the Applicant’s affidavit verifying the facts and exhibiting relevant correspondence, the Notice

Party filed a statement of opposition and supporting affidavit. The Applicant filed a replying

affidavit. Written legal submissions were exchanged. The matter was ultimately listed for

hearing before the Court on 25 June 2009. It appears that a full hearing did not take place

given that there had been agreement between the parties that the impugned Order of the

Circuit Court should be quashed and that there should be a re-trial of the matter in the Circuit

Court. Argument took place concerning the costs of the Judicial Review application and the

Court awarded same to the Applicant.

The Applicant’s costs duly came on for taxation before me on 7 February 2012. The Applicant’s

solicitor was represented by Ms. Wade Legal Costs Accountant and the Notice Party by Mr.

English Legal Costs Accountant. The bill was partly taxed. It emerged that the brief for the

hearing had been sent to senior counsel on 23 June 2009 (two days prior to the date listed for

hearing). However, the senior counsel to whom the brief had been sent was unable to take

same. Accordingly Mr. Butler S.C. was briefed. He would have held the brief for approximately

24 hours prior to the hearing. No information was available as to how Mr. Butler came to be in

receipt of the brief. The matter was adjourned accordingly.

The bill again appeared in the list for taxation on 24 May 2012. No further information was

forthcoming in relation to the briefing of counsel.

Apart from a description of the background to the application, little or no information concerning

the professional work undertaken by the Applicant’s solicitor was provided. The instructions fee

is claimed at €22,500 and upon enquiry from me it emerged that the fee was arrived at by way

of consultation between the Applicant’s solicitor and Mr. Lowe, Legal Costs Accountant.