The Gazette 1974

himself informed as to the standards of the reasonable solicitor in practice today. T h e portion of the Taxing Master's report which I have quoted indicates a possible misconception by the Taxing Master of the nature of the function he was performing insofar as it appears to indicate that he considered he was measuring the amount of counsel's fees. His report does not indicate that he exercised his discretion in relation to these dis- bursements of fees on a consideration from the solicitors point of view of what would be a reasonable fee to offer to counsel with the brief in this particular case, which he had no reason to believe would stop short of 3 verdict of the jury. In general the claims for allowances in this bill of costs are all such as one would expect of a reasonably cautious and prudent solicitor, and in this respect I take into account other items in relation to which objections were not taken to the disallowances. If, as it appears to me, the solicitor is in general reasonable in his claims on this bill of costs, and if the principle that "a success- ful party should, so far as is reasonable, be idemnified from the expense he is put to in an action" is to be applied there can be no justification for such drastic disallowances of disbursements for fees on briefs for counsel. Had the Taxing Master considered these dis- bursements on the basis of the principles I have earlier indicated it may well be that he might have ma de som e partial disallowances. This, however, might savour of caprice or arbitrary disallowance unless good reason could be shown for relatively slight reductions. T o m e all the indications are that the solicitor in this case no* only "acted in good faith and with ordinary intelli- gence" but also was reasonably prudent in his disburse- ments. Consequently, as there is no basis for any sub- stantial disallowances, his measure of remuneration ought not be interfered with. In the circumstances 1 would rule that the disallowances at items 67, 70, 73, 83 and 89 be disregarded. Finally I feel compelled to comment that the Taxing Master and the Costs Drawer who drew this bill of costs seem to be unaware of the remarks of Kenny J. at the conclusion of his judgment in Lavan v. Walshe (Num- ber 2), 1967, I.R. 129, in relation to the contents of bill* of costs, and I wish to draw their attention to this aspect. [Dunne v. O'Neill; Ga nnon J.; unreported; 5 April 1974.]

T h e report is so expressed as to convey to my mind that the Taxing Master considered that he was deciding what fees should be paid to counsel and that he was measuring such fees in relation to the matters to which he says he had regard. If this be so he erred in principle in the exercise of the discretion vested in him. Nothing in the report gives any indication that the Taxing Mas- ter had in mind the problems of a reasonable solicitor in practice at the time in determining what would be a reasonable fee to offer to counsel either on the brief or as a refresher. Indeed the allowances in respect of brief fees and those in respect of refreshers do not appear to bear any relation to each other, and it is difficult to discover what significance, if any, was given to the various matters to which the Taxing Master says he had regard. I cannot accept that any reasonable practising solicitor would expect that a fee of 20 guineas would be acceptable as a refresher fee to a senior counsel compe- tent to deal with the technical and other evidence in a case of this importance and magnitude. I cannot accept that a reasonable practising solicitor would expect that his disbursement of a refresher fee to junior counsel in a case of this magnitude would be equivalent to the allowance he would expect to receive for copying the brief, or indeed to the allowance for his own attendance in Court. Th e re appears to be no common rational basis for the variation of the allowances for refresher fees (in the case of senior counsel from 20 guineas to 30 guineas) and the variation of the allowances in respect of brief fees (in the case of senior counsel from 55 guineas to 60 guineas) such as might be expected if regard was had in respect of each to the same relevant factors. In my view the claim by the solicitor for allow- ance of disbursements for refresher fees to counsel in this case having regard to all the matters to which the Ta x i ng Master refers in his report was reasonable to the degree of being cautious. I understand from the evidence of Mr. White that the Taxing Master disregarded the submissions in relation to the depreciation in the value of money. T h e standard apparently adopted, of allowances for disbursement of brief fees in this case appears to correspond in a general way with the allow- ances which might have been made by the Tax i ng Mas- ters in similar types of cases of slightly smaller awards some six to ten years earlier. It may well be as Mr. Mackey suggests that the Taxing Master has not kept

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY

SOLICITORS'

COMBINED

Employers' Liability and Public Liability

Approved by The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland and supported by the majority of Its members — Essential protection for every firm.

LIABILITIES

INSURANCE

Full details from:

IRISH UNDERWRITING AGENCIES LTD. 42, Dawson Street. Dublin 2 Telephone 777277, 784170

SCHEME

100