Representative Body of the Church of Ireland Public Health

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 March 1930
• Date: 14 March 1930
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

Quinn and White v. Stokes and Quirke.

JOHANNA QUINN and PHILIP WHITE

Plaintiffs

and

PATRICK STOKES and MICHAEL QUIRKE

Defendants.

Practice - Costs - Judgment for £85 in High Court action - "To carry such costs as a judgment for that amount would carry in the Circuit Court" - Principle of taxation - Objection thereto - Jurisdiction of Taxing Master - Rules of the Supreme Court (Ir.), 1905, Or. LXV, r. 66 (1).

Motion to review taxation.

The plaintiffs brought an action in the High Court for illegal seizure of stock and trespass. The action was tried by O'Byrne J., sitting without a jury, on the 25th October, 1929, when he reserved judgment, which he subsequently delivered on the 13th November, 1929. O'Byrne J. gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the sum of £85, "and such costs as a judgment for that amount would carry in the Circuit Court."

The bill of costs, when taxed, amounted to the sum of £128 4s. 11d.

The defendants now applied for an order that the objections made by them on the taxation of these costs, viz.:—that the plaintiffs' bill of costs was drawn, and, subject to certain deductions, was allowed, on the scale applicable to the High Court instead of on the scale applicable to the Circuit Court, and that the basis of taxation adopted by the Taxing Master was wrong in principle—might be allowed; and that the said bill might be referred back to the Taxing Master with such directions as to the Court might seem right, to vary his certificate accordingly; or for such further or other order as to the Court might seem just.

In an affidavit in support of the motion, Nicholas C. Shee, solicitor, the town agent for the defendants' solicitor, stated that he attended, on behalf of the defendants, before Master Denning on the taxation of the costs of the plaintiffs on 27th January, 1930, and that he objected verbally to the basis on which Master Denning taxed the costs, namely, to the principle of taxing same on the High Court scale, and then deducting thirty-three and one-third per cent. off the fees allowed the solicitors for the plaintiffs, and without making any deduction from counsel's fees or other outlay. He also stated that he further objected, verbally, to the allowance of fees for senior counsel, and to the amount of various other items; and that, in reply to his objections as to the basis of the taxation, Master Denning stated that he was following the basis which he and the other Taxing Masters had acted upon, pending an order of the Court or a...