Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
1.������ The principal judgment in these proceedings was delivered on the 14th July, 2021 ( [2021] IECA 195 ).� The appeal of the appellant (Mr. M.) was dismissed.� At the conclusion of the judgment in para. 38, Noonan J. indicated the court�s provisional view that the notice party (Ms. M.) should be entitled to her costs of the appeal.� Mr. M. was given liberty to contend for a different order within 14 days of the judgment, if he wished to do so, by making submissions in writing.� No submissions were made by Mr. M. and accordingly the costs order takes effect.
2.������ The court subsequently received a request from Ms. M.�s solicitors to measure the costs of the appeal, as was done also by the High Court, in the unusual circumstances of this case, referred to in the principal judgment.� The court agreed to this proposed course of action and directed Ms. M�s solicitor to swear an affidavit exhibiting his bill of costs together with the opinion of a legal cost accountant in relation to same.
4.������ Mr. Burke�s fee note was also submitted to an independent firm of legal costs accountants, Messrs. Connolly Lowe who have given a further opinion of the 23rd August, 2021 in respect of Mr. Burke�s fee note.� William Brennan FILCA of that firm has provided his opinion that the fee claimed in the fee note in respect of both solicitor and counsel are reasonable and likely to be allowed by the Legal Costs Adjudicator were this matter to proceed to adjudication.
5.������ A replying affidavit was sworn by Mr. M. on the 4th October, 2021.� At para. 4, Mr. M. correctly suggests that the court�s jurisdiction for measuring costs is to be found in O. 99, r. 7(2) of the RSC.� He goes on however to say that he considers that the jurisdiction of the court to measure costs has been ousted by virtue of the coming into force of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015 and were the court to measure costs, this would constitute an impermissible interference with the duties and functions of the Legal Costs Adjudicator as appointed and mandated by the Act of 2015.�
6.������ The recast O. 99 came in to effect following the commencement of the 2015 Act and explicitly refers to it.� O. 99, r. 7(2) provides as follows: -
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.