Title:	Horan -v- O'Reilly & ors
Neutral Citation:	[2016] IESC 76
Supreme Court Record Number:	225/11
High Court Record Number:	2001 369 P
Date of Delivery:	12/16/2016
Court:	Supreme Court
Composition of Court:	Denham C.J., MacMenamin J., Laffoy J.
Judgment by:	Denham C.J.
Status:	Approved
Result:	Appeal dismissed

THE SUPREME COURT

Between/

1. This is an appeal brought by Martin Horan, referred to as Mr. Horan, from the judgment and order of the High Court (Kearns P.) dated the 14th April, 2011, and perfected on the 11th May, 2011.

2. Mr. Horan had brought a motion before the High Court requesting an order pursuant to Order 99, r.38(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, seeking a review of taxation of costs. The costs in issue were solicitor and client costs incurred by Mr. Horan’s solicitors, Crean, O’Clerigh and O’Dwyer, Solicitors, in the High Court and Supreme Court.

3. The President of the High Court held, on the 14th April, 2011, that, having read the notice of motion, the affidavit of Mr. Horan, filed on the 3rd August, 2010, the affidavit of John O’Dwyer filed on the 17th February, 2011, and the documents and exhibits referred to therein, and upon hearing said counsel and counsel for Crean Clerigh and O’Dwyer, Solicitors, that the motion would be refused.

4. The President refused the relief sought stating that there was no sustainable case made by Mr. Horan for him to consider. In particular, he stated that the motion to review was incorrect, and that there was no evidence to support it by way of a legal costs accountant, or any other expert evidence.

5. Mr. Horan has appealed the order of the High Court on the following grounds:-

“That the learned judge erred in law and in fact in failing to exercise his discretion in favour of [Mr. Horan] in considering the orders for costs made by the Taxing Master in these proceedings”.

5. The Court is satisfied that there was no error made by the High Court. Consequently, the Court will dismiss the appeal.