Re Ridge

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hamilton
• Judgment Date: 25 February 1977
• Neutral Citation: 1977 WJSC-HC 1342
• Date: 25 February 1977
• Court: High Court

1977 WJSC-HC 1342

THE HIGH COURT

Ridge, In Re

BAR

IN THE MATTER OF

SEAN RIDGE

A Bankrupt

Mr. Justice Hamilton

1 This matter comes before me by way of a Motion to review the taxation of a Bill of Costs being the costs of the Solicitor to the Official Assignee incurred in connection with the sale of the Bankrupt's premises situate at 20, Glenina Heights, Renmore in the County of Galway.

2 The said Bill of Costs was taxed by the Taxing Master on the 27th day of January 1976 and the 3rd day of February 1976. The Allocation was signed by the Taxing Master on the 26th day of February 1976.

3 Though the Taxing Master reduced the Bill by a sum in excess of¹/₆ of the amount claimed he allowed to the solicitor the Costs of Taxation and the Court fees on the Certificate of Taxation.

4 The Official Assignee did not lodge with the Taxing Master any objections to the allowance of these items or apply to the Taxing Master to review the taxation of these items.

5 Instead he caused to be issued a Notice of Motion in this Court for a review of the said taxation.

6 It is submitted on his behalf that the Taxing Master, having taxed off more than one-sixth of the amount claimed was obliged

(1) to disallow the costs of taxation and

7 (2) the Court Fees on the Certificate of Taxation in the absence of special grounds to be stated on the Order.

8 In support of this submission he relies on the provisions of Order 99 Rule 30(13) which states that:-

"In cases of the taxation of a bill of costs payable out of a fund or estate, or out of the assets of a company in liquidation, or as between solicitor and client, the costs of taxation shall and the Court fees on the certificate of taxation may be disallowed in case one-sixth of the bill is taxed off, unless the Taxing Master shall otherwise order, on special grounds to be stated in his order."

Counsel on behalf of the solicitor submitted

9 (1) that I had no jurisdiction to review the matter as the provisions of Order 99 Rule 38 of the Superior Court Rules had not been complied with, and

10 (2) The one-sixth Rule had no application in Bankruptcy matters.

11 I have considered this matter carefully because my ruling in this case will undoubtedly affect other cases and the practice in Bankruptcy matters.

12 I have come to the conclusion that both parties are under a misapprehension as to the application of the Rules of the Superior Courts to taxation in respect of...