Smyth v. Tunney [1998] IEHC 94; [1999] 1 ILRM 211 (12th June, 1998)

Smyth v. Tunney [1998] IEHC 94; [1999] 1 ILRM 211 (12th June, 1998)

The Taxing Master erred in failing to apportion affidavit costs, in disallowing fees for a second Senior Counsel given the exceptional circumstances, and in not allowing separate fees for written submissions as specifically directed by the Supreme Court. The solicitor's instruction fee was underestimated in light of the complexity of the motion, but the amount claimed was excessive; a reasonable figure was determined by the Court.

Citation
[1999] 1 ILRM 211
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: First and Second Named Defendants
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs / High Court Review of Taxing Master's Decision
Outcome
Taxing Master's decision varied; certain items allowed or increased as specified by the Court.
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master's Decision, Apportionment of Costs, Counsel's Fees, Solicitor's Fees
Civil Procedure Costs Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master's Decision Apportionment of Costs Counsel's Fees Solicitor's Fees

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

First and Second Named Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master erred in the taxation of costs awarded for a Supreme Court motion to adduce additional evidence
  2. 2 Whether apportionment of costs for an affidavit used in two motions was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether fees for two Senior Counsel should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The Taxing Master erred in failing to apportion affidavit costs, in disallowing fees for a second Senior Counsel given the exceptional circumstances, and in not allowing separate fees for written submissions as specifically directed by the Supreme Court. The solicitor's instruction fee was underestimated in light of the complexity of the motion, but the amount claimed was excessive; a reasonable figure was determined by the Court.

Court Disposition

Taxing Master's decision varied; certain items allowed or increased as specified by the Court.

Orders

  • 75% of the costs claimed for Mr. O'Doherty's affidavit allowed.
  • Attendance fee for adjournment allowed on same basis as affidavit apportionment.