KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva: a judge must determine the costs afresh

The parties disputed recoverable representation costs after a debt case. The order was set aside because a judicial lawyer, rather than a judge, had decided the question.

After the association’s debt claim, XX sought a determination of recoverable representation costs. Costs in the county and circuit courts had previously been allocated to KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva. The county court allowed the costs application only in part. The parties disputed the representative’s work, proof of involvement, necessity and the applicable recovery limit. XX appealed against the refusal to allow the remainder. The circuit court set aside the order of 5 December 2013 for a reason independent of the appeal arguments: a judicial lawyer, rather than a judge, had determined the costs. Relying on the Supreme Court decision of 4 February 2014, the court explained that determining recoverable costs constitutes the administration of justice, not a technical calculation. It involves assessing the necessity and reasonableness of representation, the complexity of the case and the time spent. A judge must make that assessment. A judge’s later forwarding of the appeal did not replace participation in deciding the costs application. The application was returned for a fresh hearing. Individual cost items and the underlying debt dispute were not decided by this order.

The county court order of 5 December 2013 was set aside and XX’s application to determine recoverable costs returned for a fresh hearing. The individual arguments about costs were not determined on their merits.