Spring v Minister for Finance
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | T.C. Smyth J. |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 2000 |
| Neutral Citation | [2000] IEHC 120 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | 55 MCA/1999 |
| Date | 29 May 2000 |
BETWEEN
AND
[2000] IEHC 120
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
Practice and Procedure
Taxation of costs; review; tribunal of enquiry into the beef processing industry; whether ruling of taxing master reducing costs allowed was correct; whether taxing master's comparsion of work of plaintiff's solicitor with that of other solicitors at the tribunal was erroneous; whether system of taxation can work without adequate paper records; whether methods adopted by plaintiff's solicitor appropriate.
Held: Ruling of taxing master unbalanced and unjust; nature of work involved couterbalanced limitation as to extent of work; necessity of paper records to be judged on a case by case basis.
Spring v The Minister for Finance - High Court: Smyth J - 29/05/2000
The proceedings arose out of costs incurred by the applicants during the beef tribunal. The taxing master heard objections to the amounts submitted by the applicants. The principal objections concerned the solicitor’s instruction fee and brief fees for counsel. The taxing master made certain reductions. The applicants instituted these proceedings claiming, inter alia, that the amounts awarded by the taxing master were so in error as to be amenable to review. Smyth J held that the solicitor’s instruction fee as allowed by the taxing master was unjust and would be increased by £90,000 to the sum of £575,000. The fees allowed to counsel would also be increased from a sum of £52,500 to £75,000.
Citations:
RSC O.99 r38(3)
COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27
COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27(3)
RSC O.99 r37(22)
COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27(1)
COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S27(2)
RSC O.99 r27(22)(ii)
DE ROSSA V INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS PLC UNREP GEOGHEGAN 7.3.2000
BEST V WELLCOME FOUNDATION LTD (NO 3) 1996 3 IR 378
SMYTH V TUNNEY 1993 1 IR 451 & 1999 1 ILRM 211
SUPERQUINN LTD V BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (UDC) UNREP KEARNS 5.5.2000 1999/23/7593
TREASURY SOLICITOR V DINSMORE REGESTER 1978 2 AER 920, 1978 1 WLR 446
HINGESTON V KELLY 18 LJ EX 360
HEFFERNAN V HEFFERNAN UNREP GANNON 2.12.1974
MIN FOR FINANCE V GOODMAN 1999 3 IR 333
BULA LTD V TARA MINES LTD UNREP MCGUINNESS 7.3.2000
KELLY V BREEN 1978 ILRM 378
MCGARRY, AG V SLIGO CO COUNCIL (NO 2) 1989 ILRM 785
COMMISSIONER OF IRISH LIGHTS V MAXWELL WELDON DARLEY 1997 2 IR 474
TOBIN & TWOMEY SERVICES LTD V KERRY FOODS LTD 1999 1 ILRM 428
MIN FOR FINANCE V GOODMAN 2000 1 ILRM 278
BLOOMER V INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND UNREP GEOGHEGAN 3.12.1999 1999/3/397
This matter came before the Court by way of Notice of Motion pursuant to O. 99, Rule 38(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 to review the taxation of a Bill of Costs presented by the Applicants pursuant to an award of costs granted at the conclusion of the above entitled Tribunal on the 29th day of July, 1994.
The items the subject of review set out in the Notice of Motion dated 21st June, 1999 were:-
(a) The Solicitor's instructions fee.
At the hearing the Applicants elected not to pursue (c) and the Respondent conceded liability to pay the fees as taxed attributable to Mr. O'Malley.
The hearings held by the Tribunal lasted 226 days of which the Applicants' Solicitor, Mr. Donal Spring of Spring Murray & Co was in attendance for 190 days (save for a short holiday period, when his partner, Mr. Murray, was in attendance). There is neither suggestion or evidence by anyone at any time that there was any element of unnecessary attendance or generation of irrelevant documentation or paperwork by Mr. Spring. The costs incurred by the Applicants at and in connection with their representation at the Tribunal of Inquiry were provided for and are recorded in its report as cited by the Taxing Master in his original ruling dated 31st July, 1998 (Vol. 1, p. 19–72) as a result of the hearing before him on 30th April, 1998, of which there is a transcript (Vol. 2A, p. 1–115). Objections were carried in, and the hearing of those objections of which there is a transcript (Vol. 2A, p. 116–210) and the Taxing Master delivered his ruling on the objections on 29th May, 1999 (Vol. 1, p. 73–122).
The instructions fee claimed was £785,000, which on the original ruling was reduced to £320,000 (made up as to a daily rate of £1,000 for 190 days, ie £190,000 plus a figure of £130,000 for the intangibles). This figure was altered on the ruling of 29th May, 1999 to £485,000 (made up as to a daily rate of £1,500 for 190 days, ie, £285,000 plus a figure for the intangibles of £200,000). The figure claimed and a brief fee by Senior Counsel was £152,250 which was reduced to £52,500 on the original ruling, this figure remained unaltered after the hearing of the objections.
In his original ruling the Taxing Master acknowledged (Vol. 1, p. 25 , internal p. 7) that:-
"Mr. Spring was the most prominent public representative that brought the defects in the Beef Industry to the fore....."
Having started the ball rolling, so to speak, the Tribunal were furnished with a Book 1 (dated 20th June, 1991) prepared with the assistance of a Solicitor and Counsel, for which Mr. Spring took responsibility - being a summary of allegations made or referred to in Dail Eireann and an I.T.V. programme entitled "World in Action". Likewise, a second book was prepared referable to the documents and persons relevant to allegations made in Dail Eireann and on I.T.V. (Book 2). The Tribunal it seems were pleased to have Mr. Spring's assistance in this regard as Mr. Spring had ready access to the Dail Library where the necessary research material was available. In the events the Tribunal formulated its structure for enquiry (Book 3) on the information it had received - and with some remarkable elements of coincidence, did so under headings and topics identified by Mr. Spring.
1. The Taxing Master failed to recognise and understand the role played by Mr. Spring and his Solicitor at the Tribunal.
2. The Taxing Master failed to follow (i) statute law (ii) the Rules of the Superior Courts and (iii) case law.
3. Mr. Donal Spring gave evidence before the Taxing Master and was not challenged as to veracity or credit.
4. The Cost Accountant for the Respondent conceded before the Taxing Master that Mr. Spring and Mr. Desmond were no different in their concerns than other politicians who were before the Tribunal.
5. The amounts awarded on taxation were so in error as to be unjust within the terms of S. 27 of the Courts and Courts Officers Act,1995[hereinafter referred to as "Section 27"] when compared to amounts awarded to other politicians. (In this regard Counsel prepared for the assistance of the Court comparative tables for instructions fees (marked "A") for brief fees (marked "B") and a schedule of the estimate of days on which various issues were heard by the Tribunal (marked "C"). These documents were not before the Taxing Master and were used in a form of easy reference for illustrative purposes.)
1. In a party and party taxation, the party for the costs is not entitled to a full indemnity in respect of the costs and expenses which may have been incurred by him.
2. The onus of proving that the decision of the Taxing Master is unjust (per Section 27(3)) is on the person seeking the review of the taxation.
3. That the paucity of documentation and records of the Applicant warranted the result of the taxation, and no fault or default of the Respondent is responsible for this deficiency.
4. That the Court on review must be satisfied on proof by the Applicant that the Taxing Master has (a) erred and that error per se is irrelevant, it must be a material matter of error, and (b) the error has caused the decision to be unjust.
These in broad outline set out the submissions of the parties, which were founded on some written submissions (in the case of the Applicant in Vol. 1, p. 2–14, in the case of the Respondent in a separate booklet, marked "D") and oral submissions to the Court. It was common case that the applicable statute law and Section 27 and the applicable rule of the Rules of the Superior Court 1986 was O. 99, r.37(22) and in particular those elements upon which the discretion of the Taxing Master should be exercised and set out in subparagraph (ii) thereof.
At the outset Mr. Meenan stated that he was not advancing any case that the role of Mr. Spring or Mr. Desmond equated or was comparable to that of the main parties, ie, the Minister for Agriculture and the Goodman Group of Companies. However, stress was laid on the importance of the role of Messrs. Spring & Desmond at the Tribunal, for though not parties in the forefront of the controversy, their reputations were at stake, and they were extremely concerned that such allegations or matters of concern that they had been directly or indirectly responsible for bringing into the public domain would be sustained. There was an appreciation that this would be a very difficult task in the light of their decision to rely on Parliamentary Privilege and their anxiety and decision not to disclose their sources of information. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence of Messrs. Spring &...
To continue reading
Request your trial