Fr. Kevin Reynolds legal team fees slashed

Delancey

Being reported by RTE that the High Court Taxing Master has radically slashed the legal fees sought by the team that represented Fr. Kevin Reynolds in his recent high -profile case against RTE.

Solicitors sought 275 K - cut to just 80 K

2 Senior Counsel sought 65 K each - cut to 26 K each

1 Junior Counsel sought 43 K - cut to just 20 K

In terms of % reductions would these cuts be something of a record for the Taxing Master ?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0516/fr-kevin-reynolds-legal-fees-reduced-by-200-000.html

MagicSean

Seems like some crazy fees for a slam dunk case that could be proven with DNA testing alone.

nuac

I think the solicitor's fee is too low.

This was a career threatening issue for Fr Reynolds - his entire life's work as a priest threatened.

His solicitor had to act quickly, which he did.

RTE by their mishandling contributed to the time and effort required.

They went ahead with the programme in the face of facts - wonder what the taxing master thought of the vital email sent by the solicitor on transmission day offering a paternity test which was " just resting in a mailbox " for about four hours.

I understand they didnt settle on issue of writ, but prolonged matters

I believe when considering the instructions fee the taxing master was entitled to consider the urgency of the matter , importance to Fr Reynolds, and the gung-ho attitude of RTE.

I think an appeal against this taxation would be worthwhile

BrianD

nuac wrote: »

I think the solicitor's fee is too low.

This was a career threatening issue for Fr Reynolds - his entire life's work as a priest threatened.

His solicitor had to act quickly, which he did.

RTE by their mishandling contributed to the time and effort required.

They went ahead with the programme in the face of facts - wonder what the taxing master thought of the vital email sent by the solicitor on transmission day offering a paternity test which was " just resting in a mailbox " for about four hours.

I understand they didnt settle on issue of writ, but prolonged matters

I believe when considering the instructions fee the taxing master was entitled to consider the urgency of the matter , importance to Fr Reynolds, and the gung-ho attitude of RTE.

I think an appeal against this taxation would be worthwhile

While I agree that great wrong was caused here, it doesn't entitle anybody to jack up their fees if this is the case. The TM would appear not to be in agreement with the legal team on this matter.

Can the taxing master take into account the details you refer to?

Delancey

BrianD wrote: »

Can the taxing master take into account the details you refer to?

Note the reference the taxing Master made to ensuring that no elememt of '' penalty '' came into his decision - perhaps suggests he is limited in what he may consider ?

nuac makes an interesting point - can Taxing Master rulings be appealed , I always thought they were final and binding on all ?

Tom Young

Delancey wrote: »

Note the reference the taxing Master made to ensuring that no elememt of '' penalty '' came into his decision - perhaps suggests he is limited in what he may consider ?

nuac makes an interesting point - can Taxing Master rulings be appealed , I always thought they were final and binding on all ?

Course they can be appealed. Kearns P. ruled on an appeal quite recently from a decision of TM Flynn (far as I remember).

nuac

Yes imho the TM can take account of the urgency of the matter and the importance of it to the client.

imho he can also take account of extra work caused by RTE intransigence ad " system failure ".

In other organisations I know if a solicitor contacted them in a matter such as this there would be an immediate hold and review of the matter by senior people. Did not happen here.

dermot_sheehan

s. 27(3) Court and Court Officers Act 1995

The High Court may review a decision of a Taxing Master of the High Court and the Circuit Court may review a decision of a County Registrar exercising the powers of a Taxing Master of the High Court made in the exercise of his or her powers under this section, to allow or disallow any costs, charges, fees or expenses provided only that the High Court is satisfied that the Taxing Master, or the Circuit Court is satisfied that the County Registrar, has erred as to the amount of the allowance or disallowance so that the decision of the Taxing Master or the County Registrar is unjust.

The taxing master is supposed to review the "value" of the work done.

Delancey

While few would disagree with the notion that RTE acted in any way other than complete dickheads from start to finish in this story the question has to be asked is how should this have any bearing on fees ?
Surely if ' punitive ' or ' penalty ' steps against RTE were to be taken the correct vehicle for this was the amount of damages paid to Fr. Reynolds ( and no doubt negotiated by his legal team ) ?

It seems inappropriate that any ' penalty ' be reflected in the level of fees , rather such penalty should be in the damages paid to the injured party ?

johnnyskeleton

How much work was actually done? How complex were the issues, how much court time did it take etc?

Courts website says there were two motions, it settled on the first day of hearing and was finished within 3 months. Doesn't sound all that complex yet the fees are higher than many cases that would, on their face, at least, seem far less complicated.

dermot_sheehan

I understand there is a term called "mulched costs", which is the equivalent of exemplary/punitive damages. It's an award of costs designed to penalise the party for bringing the application above and beyond the economic cost of the respondent defending it because there was some wrongful or improper purpose or conduct on one side.

I've never seen it been awarded, I have just heard about it.

Normally costs are just "party and party costs", which is the losing side indemnifying the other side for the costs necessarily and properly incurred in bringing the action, and

"solicitor and client costs", which are all the costs a party owes to his own legal team, regardless whether they are caught by the above.

Normally only party and party costs are awarded, solicitor and client can be for the court to express some sort of outrage at the conduct of the otherside. Normally it would however be for their conduct in the course of the litigation.

nuac

I heard of mulching potatoes, but that is first I heard of mulched costs. One lives and learns.

Without getting into punitive or penal costs, RTE behaved badly here in handlng the claim. This led to extra work for the solicitor.

Midnight oil is expensive.

jblack

What the f... were the advices of the cost accountant's??? Something not right there, that article is seriously damaging to the firm's reputation.

O'Neill is new - politics (Shatter) at play?