Court told of ‘significant progress’ in dispute between Bar Council and retired judge over legal costs bill

An application by the Bar Council to appoint a receiver over the pension funds of a retired judge in a dispute over a €144,000 legal costs bill has been adjourned by the High Court following “significant progress” in the matter.

The Council sought the costs against retired High Court judge Barry White after he unsuccessfully challenged a Bar Council rule which he said was impeding his bid to resume his criminal practice post retirement.

The application for appointment of a receiver first came before the High Court last July, but was twice adjourned on consent on the basis of some engagement between the sides.

When it returned to court on Monday, Mr Justice Michael Quinn was told by Roland Rowan BL, for the council, that “significant progress” has been made.

Ransom ’79 review: Charlie Bird and the £5m plot to blackmail the Irish government

---

Interruptions undermine workplace focus and productivity

---

How long might commuters be waiting for the Dart to Drogheda?

---

From Nicola Coughlan’s hunks in landscaped gardens to Cillian Murphy’s gripping gangster romp: Patrick Freyne’s costume drama guide

---

He did not wish to say “too much more” and wanted an adjournment to early next month, counsel said. Hopefully, he added, the parties will be able to deal with matters in the interim.

The judge adjourned the matter, on consent, for mention only to December 5th.

The council initiated the application to appoint a solicitor as receiver over three pension funds of Mr White’s due to an alleged outstanding legal costs bill of some €144,000.

Mr White retired in 2014 after 12 years as a High Court judge. He had an extensive practice at the criminal Bar prior to his appointment to the bench but had to retire as a judge at the age of 70.

In his bid to resume practice as a criminal defence barrister, he took legal proceedings against the Bar Council and the State.

His action concerned a Bar Council rule that prevented him practising in a court equal to, or lower than, the one he presided over. In his case, that meant all courts below the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Mr White claimed he needed to return to work as a barrister due to financial necessity, and because his pension entitlements were insufficient to meet the needs of his family.

He alleged the Bar Council rule, and an impermissible application by the Minister for Justice of the rule, excluding him from the criminal legal aid panel unless he was a member of the Law Library, breached his constitutional right to earn a livelihood.

In July 2016, the High Court ruled Mr White could return to practice without having to be a member of the Law Library, but refused to declare the council rule was unconstitutional, saying the Bar is effectively a private club entitled to operate its own rules.

The court ruled the Minister was liable for Mr White’s entire costs of the proceedings, including his failed claim against the council. However, the Minister won an appeal over being held liable for Mr White’s costs to the council on the basis the High Court lacked jurisdiction to make the Minister liable for Mr White’s costs to the council.

That meant the State had to pay Mr White’s costs of his successful claim against the State but he was liable for the council’s costs in relation to his failed claim against it.