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)

Order 31, Rule 29 is mandatory as to both right and amount of costs; the non-party is entitled to all costs reasonably incurred, but bears the burden of proving reasonableness. The Taxing Master erred in law by placing the burden on the Plaintiff and giving the benefit of doubt to the non-party.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] 1 IR 283
Parties
Plaintiff: Dunne; Defendants: Fox and Others; Non Party: Price Waterhouse
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Review of Taxation of Costs Under Order 99, Rule 38(3), Rules of the Superior Courts / High Court Review of Taxing Master's Decision
Outcome
Review allowed in part; Taxing Master erred in law regarding burden of proof, but allowances made for costs were reasonable and proper.
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Discovery by Non Parties, Burden of Proof in Costs, Section 205 Companies Act 1963
Civil Procedure Company Law Taxation of Costs Discovery by Non Parties Burden of Proof in Costs Section 205 Companies Act 1963

Source-derived case record

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dunne

Plaintiff

Fox and Others

Defendants

Price Waterhouse

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Review of Taxation of Costs Under Order 99, Rule 38(3), Rules of the Superior Courts / 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 under Order 31, Rule 29, to the person against whom that Order has been obtained?
  2. 2 Who bears the burden of proof for reasonableness of costs incurred by a non-party under Order 31, Rule 29?

Ratio Decidendi

Order 31, Rule 29 is mandatory as to both right and amount of costs; the non-party is entitled to all costs reasonably incurred, but bears the burden of proving reasonableness. The Taxing Master erred in law by placing the burden on the Plaintiff and giving the benefit of doubt to the non-party.

Court Disposition

Review allowed in part; Taxing Master erred in law regarding burden of proof, but allowances made for costs were reasonable and proper.

Orders

  • Non-party entitled to all costs reasonably incurred in consequence of the Orders.
  • Burden of proof for reasonableness of costs is on the Non-party.