National Bank, Flanagan of Public Works
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 18 January 1939 |
Date | 18 January 1939 |
Court | Supreme Court |
Supreme Court.
Workmen's compensation - Arbitration proceedings in Circuit Court - Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court Judge as to costs - Rules of the Circuit Court, Or. XXXIII; Or. XL, rr. 13 and 14 - Consolidated Workmen's Compensation (Ir.) Rules, 1917 (Stat. R. & Or., 1917, No. 529), r. 71 - Scale of costs in equity suits - Selection of scale - Jurisdiction to award costs on higher scale - County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877 (40 & 41Vict. c. 56), ss. 34 and 84 - Rules made under Part II of the Act as to costs in equity suits, r. 4 - Special fee - Jurisdiction to award - Exercise of discretion by Circuit Court Judge - Workmen's Compensation Act,1934 (No. 9 of 1934), s. 37.
Application on behalf of the Commissioners of Public Works, the respondents to proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, by way of appeal to the Supreme Court, for an order that so much of the order of Circuit Court Judge Sheehy as ordered that the costs of the
applicant, Thomas Murtagh, a workman employed by the said Commissioners, should be taxed on the higher equity scale and also directed payment to the applicant's solicitor of a special fee of £5 5s. 0d. be reversed, and that in lieu thereof it might be ordered that the costs awarded to the applicant be taxed on the appropriate ordinary scale without such special remuneration as aforesaid.The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are sufficiently stated for the purposes of this report, in the judgment of Murnaghan J.
The relevant portion of the judgment of the Circuit Court Judge, with which this appeal is concerned, was as follows:—
"Tax the costs according to the ordinary practice on the higher equity scale, and allow Mr. McCabe [the applicant's solicitor] £5 5s. 0d. special fee. I think it is a very reasonable application, especially where the workman is depending on the weekly compensation, and, because of the failure of the respondents to pay, his solicitor had to take action and see his client often and write numerous letters. In a case like that it seems to me to be eminently reasonable for the solicitor to ask for a special fee, because of the extra work he had, owing to the respondents failing to do their duty. In every case of this kind where this happens I will give extra costs."
The effect of s. 37 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, and Or. XXXIII of the Rules of the Circuit Court is to make the question of costs in workmen's compensation cases depend on r. 71 of the Consolidated Workmen's Compensation (Ir.) Rules, 1917, and, under that rule, the Circuit Court Judge has jurisdiction to direct that costs be taxed in accordance with any particular scale applicable to equity cases which he may select. The Circuit Court Judge has also jurisdiction under r. 4. of the Rules as to costs in equity eases made pursuant to the provisions of the County Officers and Courts (Ir.) Act, 1877, Part II, to give an additional fee over and above the amount of costs recoverable on the higher equity scale. And, unless he states some reason showing that he was acting on a wrong principle, the discretion of the Circuit Court Judge ought not to be impugned.
So held by the Supreme Court.
A workman met with an accident in 1937, and was paid compensation by his employers at the full statutory rate until the 28th July, 1938, when payment was stopped without any reason being given. He accordingly brought proceedings in the Circuit Court under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, and on the 9th November, 1938, he was awarded 18s. per week in respect of total incapacity from the 28th July, 1938, to the date of the hearing and 13s. 6d. per week as from that date. In connection with the preparation of his ease there was a great deal of medical evidence, and his solicitor had a large number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial