The Minister for Finance v Laurence Goodman, Goodman International and Subsidiary Companies (No 1)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 2000
• Date: 01 January 2000
• Docket Number: [1998 No. 60, 61, 62 and 63 MCA]
• Court: High Court

Minister for Finance v. Goodman (No. 1)

The Minister for Finance

Applicant

and

Laurence Goodman, Goodman International and Subsidiary Companies, Respondents (No. 1)

[1998 No. 60, 61, 62 and 63 MCA]

High Court

Practice - Costs - Taxation - Review - Whether oral evidence not adduced before Taxing Master may be adduced before court - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 (S.I. No. 15), O. 99, r. 38(3), and O. 99, r. 38(4).

Order 99, r. 38(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, ("the Rules") provides that:-

"Any party who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Taxing Master as to any items which have been objected to as aforesaid or with the amount thereof, may within twenty-one days from the date of the determination of the hearing of the objections … apply to the court for an order to review the taxation as to the same items and the Court may thereupon make such order as may seem just."

Order 99, r. 38(4) of the Rules provides that:-

"The application to the Court shall be made by motion on notice to the other party concerned … and the motion shall be heard and determined by the Court upon the evidence which shall have been brought in before the Taxing Master, and no further evidence shall be received upon the hearing thereof, unless the Court shall otherwise direct."

The Taxing Master ruled on the taxation of the bill of costs submitted by the respondents arising from the tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry. Following the said ruling objections were carried in on behalf of the applicant. The Taxing Master ruled on the objections. The Taxing Master heard no oral evidence on the taxation. He did, however, hear viva voce evidence on the hearing of the objections.

The applicant sought orders to review the said taxation of costs. The applicant sought leave to adduce oral evidence on the review which had not been before the Taxing Master.

Held by the High Court (Laffoy J.), in granting leave to adduce oral evidence, 1, that a strict interpretation of the terms of O. 99, r. 38(4) provided that the reception of further evidence on the review was to be the exception to the normal rule and must be justifiable by exceptional circumstances.

2. That the established jurisprudence of the Court was to receive oral evidence on the hearing of taxation reviews.

Cases mentioned in this report:-

Best v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. (No. 3) [1996] 3 I.R. 378; [1996] 1 I.L.R.M. 34.

Bula Ltd. (In Receivership) v. Tara Mines Ltd. [1987] I.R. 494.

Commissioners of Irish Lights v. Maxwell, Weldon & Darley (Unreported, High Court, Barron J., 15th May, 1996).

Crown Chemical v. Cork County Council [1984] I.L.R.M. 555.

Dunne v. Fox [1999] 1 I.R. 283.

Dunne v. O'Neill [1974] I.R. 180; (1974) 109 I.L.T.R. 101.

Heffernan v. Heffernan (Unreported, High Court, Gannon J., 2nd December, 1974).

In re Kevin J. Walshe (1962) 96 I.L.T.R. 173.

Kelly v. Breen [1978] I.L.R.M. 63.

Kelly (an infant) v. Hoey (Unreported, High Court, Butler J., 2nd December, 1973).

Lavan v. Walsh (No. 2) [1967] I.R. 129.

McGrory v. Express Newspapers plc. (Unreported, High Court, Murphy J., 21st July, 1995).

Murphy v. Minister for Defence [1991] 2 I.R. 161.

Smyth v. Tunney [1993] 1 I.R. 451.

The State (Gleeson) v. Minister for Defence (Unreported, High Court, Gannon J., 23rd June, 1980).

The State (Boylan) v. Kennedy (Unreported, High Court, Finlay P., 13th December, 1982).

Review of taxation.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Laffoy J., infra.

By motion on notice dated the 28th May, 1998, the applicant sought an order pursuant to O. 99, r. 38(3) of the Rules of Superior Courts, 1986, for a review of the taxation by the Taxing Master of items objected to by the applicant before the Taxing Master on bills of costs delivered by the respondent.

The motion was heard by the High Court (Laffoy J.) on the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd April, and the 15th June, 1999.

Cur. adv. vult.

Laffoy J. 19th May, 1999

On these four applications the applicant seeks orders under O. 99, r. 38(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 ("the Rules")to review the taxation of the costs of the respondents of appearing before the Tribunal of Inquiry colloquially known as the Beef Tribunal as to certain items. Broadly speaking the items in issue are counsels' fees, including brief fees, refresher fees, fees in relation to non-sitting days and fees in relation to preparation of submissions, solicitors' general instructions fees and disbursements to experts and advisers.

The taxation of the bills of costs submitted by the respondents commenced before Master Flynn on the 24th October, 1995. It was interrupted by an application to this Court for judicial review and following the judgment of Carroll J. delivered on the 9th February, 1996, on the judicial review, it was resumed on the 8th May, 1996. Master Flynn ruled on the taxation on the 30th July, 1996. Objections were carried in on behalf of the applicant. The objections were heard by Master Flynn who ruled on the objections on the 18th April, 1997. It is common case that in every sense these taxations are the biggest taxations in the history of the State. The amounts in issue on this review aggregate in excess of £7 million.

Order 99, r. 38(3) provides as follows:-

"Any party who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Taxing Master as to any items which have been objected to as aforesaid or with the amount thereof, may within twenty-one days from the date of the determination of the hearing of the objections … apply to the court for an order to review the taxation as to the same items and the Court may thereupon make such order as may seem just."

Order 99, r. 38(4) deals with the procedural aspects of the review and provides as follows:-

"The application to the Court shall be made by motion on notice to the other party concerned … and the motion shall be heard and determined by the Court upon the evidence which shall have been brought in before the Taxing Master, and no further evidence shall be received upon the hearing thereof, unless the Court shall otherwise direct."

The applicant's applications were properly initiated by four notices of motion which identified the items in the bills of costs in respect of which review is sought. While the applications came before the Court in a correct procedural manner in accordance with the Rules, it became apparent after the commencement of the hearing that the matters were not structured in a way which was conducive to efficient processing and that there were major...