A dispute over liability for costs incurred by a solicitor when acting for a student who sued over an internet video clip falsely portraying him as a taxi fare evader in Dublin when he was in Japan will have to be thrashed out after the exact amount of those costs are decided, a High Court judge has ruled.
Paul Lambert, represented by Ronan Lupton BL, has claimed a total of €1.9 million in legal costs from Eoin McKeogh (23), Donadea, Co Kildare, and his parents Eamon and Fidelma McKeogh.
The parents deny they were ever clients of Mr Lambert, the principal and sole member of Merrion Legal solicitors, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin.
He was struck off the roll of solicitors last July over failure to honour his firm’s undertaking to provide security for a €450,000 loan advanced to him by ICS Building Society in 2006 to buy an investment property in Howth.
Professional fee
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan noted Mr Lambert’s bill for the McKeogh case included €1.4 million for a solicitor’s professional fee, while the rest was for outlay and other expenses.
Counsel who acted for the student during a 16-day High Court injunction application appeared to have waived their fees, he observed.
Mr Lambert had asked the judge to have the costs issue referred to a High Court Taxing Master for a decision on the exact amount to be paid.
Mr McKeogh consented to solicitor/client costs being referred for taxation provided both sides bear their own costs of taxation and without prejudice to his right to argue that Mr Lambert was retained on foot of a “no foal, no fee” arrangement. The parents objected to costs being taxed against them.
In his ruling, the judge noted it was not disputed Mr McKeogh was a client of Mr Lambert’s before his retainer was terminated in June 2013.
Strenuously denied
The parents strenuously denied they were clients and also raised other issues, including an apparently unresolved complaint by Mr McKeogh to the Law Society, plus separate proceedings against Mr Lambert over his failure to honour the undertaking to ICS.
It was not appropriate to take such matters into account at this stage of the case, he said. Such issues may, among other matters, become relevant in any later proceedings for recovery of whatever costs are decided by the Taxing Master, he added.
He would refer the costs issue for taxation without prejudice to any issues Mr McKeogh may later seek to raise in any proceedings aimed at recovering costs, the judge said.
His parents’ participation, should they wish to participate, was entirely without prejudice to any issues they may wish to raise in any later proceedings for recovery of costs, the judge added.
Grossly defamed
The High Court previously ruled Mr McKeogh was grossly defamed in the internet video because he was incontrovertibly not the person in it. It later found he was entitled to orders against YouTube, Google, Facebook and a number of websites aimed at securing the permanent removal of the video and accompanying material.
A stay on those orders applies pending appeal to the Supreme Court while earlier interim orders preventing republishing of the clip remain in place pending the appeal. The full hearing of Mr McKeogh’s action over the clips is on hold until after the appeal.
