Dunne v. Fox [1998] IEHC 209; [1999] 1 IR 283 (3rd April, 1998)

Dunne v. Fox [1998] IEHC 209; [1999] 1 IR 283 (3rd April, 1998)

The proper basis for taxation of costs under Order 31, Rule 29 is that the non-party is entitled to all costs reasonably incurred in complying with the order, and the onus of proving reasonableness is on the non-party. The Taxing Master erred in law by placing the burden on the Plaintiff and by giving the benefit of doubt to the non-party.

Citation
[1998] IEHC 209
Parties
Plaintiff: Dunne; Defendants: Fox and Others; Non Party: Price Waterhouse
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Review of Taxation of Costs / High Court Review of Taxing Master's Decision
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for review of taxation allowed in part; Taxing Master's approach to burden of proof found erroneous, but allowances made were upheld as reasonable on the evidence.
Legal Topics
Discovery by Non Parties, Taxation of Costs, Burden of Proof in Costs Taxation
Civil Procedure Company Law Discovery by Non Parties Taxation of Costs Burden of Proof in Costs Taxation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dunne

Plaintiff

Fox and Others

Defendants

Price Waterhouse

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Review of Taxation of Costs / High Court Review of Taxing Master's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper basis for taxation of costs payable by a litigant who has obtained an order for non-party discovery under Order 31, Rule 29?
  2. 2 Who bears the burden of proof regarding the reasonableness of costs claimed by a non-party under such an order?

Ratio Decidendi

The proper basis for taxation of costs under Order 31, Rule 29 is that the non-party is entitled to all costs reasonably incurred in complying with the order, and the onus of proving reasonableness is on the non-party. The Taxing Master erred in law by placing the burden on the Plaintiff and by giving the benefit of doubt to the non-party.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for review of taxation allowed in part; Taxing Master's approach to burden of proof found erroneous, but allowances made were upheld as reasonable on the evidence.

Orders

  • The non-party is entitled to all costs reasonably incurred in consequence of the discovery orders, with the onus on the non-party to establish reasonableness.
  • The allowances made by the Taxing Master for the non-party's own fees and for payments to solicitors and counsel are upheld as reasonable.