Summary of Judgment — High Court (Ex tempore) — 13 May 2026

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant (a group subject to costs orders from the High Court and the Court of Appeal) is the paying party to costs claimed by certain Notice Parties. A bill of costs was served 16 September 2025 and a notice of application for adjudication lodged 03 October 2025. Multiple call-overs and adjournments followed. The Applicant lodged Form 9 applications dated 20 March 2026 and 06 May 2026 alleging documentary deficiencies (missing invoices, missing contemporaneous time records, reconciliation issues, unclear VAT treatment and other supporting material) such that the Applicant could not engage with the adjudication on a fair and informed basis. The Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator scheduled an adjudication for 14–15 May 2026 and did not itself give an express direction that the bill "may be accepted for adjudication notwithstanding lack of conformity" under O.99, r.26(7) of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The Applicant sought ex parte leave to issue judicial review proceedings and a stay of the adjudication. Affidavits from Attorney Landers (solicitor) and Attorney O'Sullivan (costs accountant) were relied on, and inspections of solicitor files occurred in April and May 2026. Judge Phelan delivered an ex tempore decision on 13 May 2026 granting limited leave to seek judicial review and granting a stay of the scheduled adjudication, with directions for service and a timetable for the return of the motion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator lawfully indicated that the adjudication should proceed despite asserted non-compliance with O.99, r.23 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
2. Whether the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator should have directed that the bill of costs "may be accepted for adjudication notwithstanding lack of conformity" pursuant to O.99, r.26(7).
3. Whether the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator failed to have regard to the guidelines published under s.142 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (the "guidelines", September 2021).
4. Whether a stay of the scheduled adjudication should be granted pending judicial review.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The bill of costs did not comply with O.99, r.23 (missing invoices, timesheets, vouchers, VAT particulars, reconciliation), preventing fair engagement and challenging of the claim.
• The Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator did not determine the Form 9 applications nor direct acceptance under O.99, r.26(7); instead he listed the adjudication to proceed without resolving deficiencies.
• The Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator failed to take proper account of the September 2021 guidelines prepared under s.142 of the Act.
• The information deficits meant statutory review routes (s.160/s.161) and s.157(7) remedies would not be adequate in the circumstances; urgency justified immediate judicial review and a stay.

Notice Parties' / Respondent's Position (as recorded)

• On mentions before the adjudicator, the costs accountant for the Notice Parties stated the parties were "in good shape for the hearing" and objected to late Form 9 filings.
• The Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator indicated he would proceed with the adjudication and that issues could be dealt with at the adjudication itself.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court set out the statutory and rule framework governing adjudication (ss.142, 151, 154–157 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015; O.99 RSC, esp. r.23, r.24, r.26, r.27) and the 2021 guidelines. The Court summarised the factual chronology and expert evidence of Attorney O'Sullivan concerning substantial documentary deficiencies (invoices, time records, VAT information, reconciliation across multiple firms) and the piecemeal late delivery of documents for a bill of circa €3.2m.

On leave for judicial review the Court required an arguable ground and exhaustion of alternative remedies. The Court found arguable grounds because (i) the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator appeared not to have made any determination on the Form 9s as to whether the Applicants could fairly engage given non-conformity with O.99, r.23; (ii) he appeared not to have directed acceptance under O.99, r.26(7); and (iii) he appeared not to have taken the 2021 guidelines into account.

On alternative remedies, the Court considered s.157(7), s.160 and s.161 but concluded that those statutory remedies presuppose adjudication on a full factual basis; given the information deficit identified by the expert evidence, those routes were not adequate and the Applicants were not required to exhaust them before seeking JR. The Court relied on LA v. The Chief Appeals Officer to justify departing from the default rule requiring exhaustion where an alternative remedy exists.

On the stay application the Court applied the Okunade test: the Applicant had an arguable case; the Court balanced the risk of injustice and found the greater risk lay in permitting the adjudication to proceed immediately (ineffective review, prejudice from unresolved documentary gaps). The Court also had regard to the Applicants' undertaking as to Courts Act interest (limited undertaking as to damages) and to the relative strength of the Applicant's case given the expert evidence. On that basis the Court considered a stay appropriate.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court granted the Applicant leave to issue judicial review proceedings and granted a stay of the adjudication that had been scheduled for 14–15 May 2026.

Specific orders and consequences recorded in the decision:

• Leave to issue judicial review was granted on the grounds specified in the ex parte docket: ground 1(ii); ground 1(iv); ground 1(v); ground 1(vi); ground 1(vii); ground 1(viii); ground 1(ix). The Court did not grant leave on ground 1(x). Ground 1(i) was not relied on for the grant of leave; ground 1(xi) (damages) was noted as a separate issue.
• The adjudication scheduled for 14–15 May 2026 is stayed pending the full determination of the judicial review proceedings.
• The Applicants gave an undertaking that Courts Act interest will apply on any sum ultimately adjudicated in respect of the High Court and Court of Appeal costs from 12 May 2026 to the conclusion of the judicial review, if the Applicants are unsuccessful.
• Directions: the Applicant's solicitor to notify the Office of the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator immediately; a perfected order to follow; notice of motion to issue within seven days and service on respondent and notice parties within seven days; motion returnable 30 June 2026; costs reserved in relation to the ex parte leave application and the stay application.

Implication: The immediate practical effect is that the scheduled adjudication is suspended and judicial review will proceed on the limited grounds for which leave was granted. The Court indicated no new general precedent beyond applying existing precedent (LA; Okunade) to the specific factual matrix of significant documentary deficiencies; broader legal effects were not asserted by the Court.