Boyne v Dublin Bus/Bus Atha Cliath & Anor [2006] IEHC 209 (14 June 2006)

Boyne v Dublin Bus/Bus Atha Cliath & Anor [2006] IEHC 209 (14 June 2006)

Failure by a solicitor to send a letter strictly complying with s.68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 does not deprive a successful party of entitlement to recover party and party costs from the opposing party. Section 68 is intended to protect the client-solicitor relationship, not to provide a defence to the paying party. The letter of 12 August 1999 was sufficient compliance with s.68(1)(c). The Taxing Master's discretion in allowing the costs was not shown to be unjust or in error.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 209
Parties
Plaintiff: Luke Boyne; Defendant: Dublin Bus/Bus Atha Cliath; Defendant: James McGrath
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Review of Taxation of Costs / High Court Review of Taxing Master's Decision
Outcome
Defendants' preliminary objection dismissed; Taxing Master's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Solicitors' Charges, Compliance With Solicitors (amendment) Act 1994, Party and Party Costs, Section 68 Letters
Civil Procedure Costs Taxation of Costs Solicitors' Charges Compliance With Solicitors (amendment) Act 1994 Party and Party Costs Section 68 Letters

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Boyne

Plaintiff

Dublin Bus/Bus Atha Cliath

Defendant

James McGrath

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with s.68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 deprives a successful party of entitlement to recover party and party costs from the opposing party
  2. 2 Whether the letter sent by the plaintiff's solicitors complied with s.68(1)(c) of the 1994 Act
  3. 3 Whether the Taxing Master's discretion in allowing costs was exercised correctly

Ratio Decidendi

Failure by a solicitor to send a letter strictly complying with s.68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 does not deprive a successful party of entitlement to recover party and party costs from the opposing party. Section 68 is intended to protect the client-solicitor relationship, not to provide a defence to the paying party. The letter of 12 August 1999 was sufficient compliance with s.68(1)(c). The Taxing Master's discretion in allowing the costs was not shown to be unjust or in error.

Court Disposition

Defendants' preliminary objection dismissed; Taxing Master's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff entitled to recover party and party costs as taxed.
  • Specific amounts allowed: Senior Counsel's brief fee €15,000; Junior Counsel's brief fee €10,000; Refresher fees €3,000 (senior) and €2,000 (junior) per day; Solicitors' instruction fee €68,750; Expert report fee IR£3,000.