A challenge by the HSE to legal costs described as “off the scale” has been rejected by the High Court.
The failed application was in relation to a medical negligence claim that saw a bill of costs being submitted by the plaintiff’s legal team for €1.68 million.
The case involved alleged catastrophic birth injuries and preparations for the hearing, which it was expected could last up to 10 weeks, involve more than 30 expert witnesses, 11 witnesses as to fact, and approximately 45 reports.
However, the case was settled on a conditional basis before it went to trial.
READ MORE
Following a decision on costs by the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator (CLCA), the HSE took a case to the High Court in respect of the size of the solicitor’s instruction fee, the brief fee for a senior counsel and the brief fee for a junior counsel.
Fees claimed by the plaintiff’s side for a second senior counsel were disallowed by the CLCA.
In relation to the solicitor’s instruction fee, the plaintiff’s side sought €703,000, but the amount allowed by the CLCA was €520,000. The HSE had submitted that a more appropriate sum was €375,000.
In relation to the senior counsel’s fee, the sum sought was €175,000, but the amount allowed by the CLCA was €95,000. The HSE argued that the appropriate amount was €75,000.
In relation to the junior counsel’s fee, the sum sought was €116,666, but the amount allowed by the CLCA was €65,000. The HSE argued that the appropriate amount was €50,000.
The case was settled on a conditional basis in June 2022 for 50 per cent of damages assessed or agreed, with payment on account of €4 million. Mediation in April 2022 had proved unsuccessful, an original trial date in May 2022 was adjourned, and the case was settled that June.
There was general agreement between both sides as to the complexity and difficulty of the case, according to a ruling by Judge Conleth Bradley in the High Court.
However, the HSE argued that the CLCA overestimated and overstated the complexity of the case, and that the costs allowed were “disproportionately excessive or ‘off the scale’”, the judgment said.
The plaintiff’s side, for its part, said the documents before the CLCA when reviewing the case included approximately 23 bankers’ boxes of pleadings, particulars, reports, medical records and other documents.
The State briefed two senior counsel for the case. However, the CLCA concluded it was not necessary for the plaintiff to brief a second counsel, according to the High Court ruling.
Bradley ruled that the allowances agreed were “not wholly excessive and unreasonable”, and were not unjust.
