A businesswoman is facing a legal costs bill estimated at more than €500,000 after losing a High Court battle over whether she must pay some €64,000 sought from her by her former solicitors.
Mr Justice Paul McDermott said Mason Hayes Curran (MHC) was entitled to judgment for the €64,818 sought from the woman and he also awarded costs, estimated at more than €500,000, of the 13 day High Court action against her.
The woman opposed the law firm’s action and counterclaimed over alleged negligence in aspects of the conduct of family law proceedings involving herself and her former husband.
In his judgment published this week, Mr Justice McDermott found in favour of MHC and dismissed the counterclaim.
MHC issued a summons in 2010 claiming a balance of about €216,000 was due for services provided during the course of their retained, which began in July 2005. Fees for counsel were separately paid by the woman.
The relationship between the woman and the solicitors effectively broke down in 2009 but they continued to represent her until 2011 when a notice of change of solicitor was served, the judge noted.
In July 2013, the High Court found MHC was entitled to judgment for €100,000 and sent the balance of the claim to plenary hearing.
MHC also registered various judgment mortgages against the woman which were ultimately discharged when she wanted to dispose of the affected property.
By the time the case was heard earlier this year, the MHC claim was further reduced because the woman entered into a separate agreement with an accountancy firm, which had provided asset valuation services, and the balance left was €64,818.
In his judgment, the judge said the woman had in July 2005 retained a solicitor in Arthur O’Hagan Solicitors, which firm later merged into MHC, to act on her behalf in proceedings for judicial separation and divorce from her husband.
In a letter of July 2005, the solicitor had summarised issues believed to exist between the parties following their marital breakdown and also set out the basis upon which legal fees would be charged. The letter said they would be calculated mainly by reference to all time spent by the solicitor, a partner whose then hourly charge out fee was €275, and other personnel in the firm dealing with the matter.
At all material times, MHC continued to represent the woman until March 23rd 2011 when a notice of change of solicitor was served, the judge said.
The judge said this was a difficult and highly contentious matrimonial dispute, both parties had substantial assets and the solicitors instructed an accountancy firm to advise on the financial aspects. High Court proceedings were advanced during 2006 and disclosure and discovery were sought concerning both parties assets.
In early 2007 the woman made a failed attempt to settle the case with her husband without solicitors being involved.
Steps continued in relation to the court proceedings but in May 2008 an agreement was reached at a meeting between the woman, her husband and her father without involvement of solicitors.
The agreement was presented to the solicitors for the parties and formed the basis of a settlement signed by both parties in November 2008 and of orders made by consent by the High Court.
The judge said the terms of the orders and settlement, and subsequent attempts to secure their implementation, were subject of the woman’s counterclaim in this case.
He was not satisfied, on the evidence, she had established, on the balance of probability, that the firm, or the relevant solicitor, were negligent or acted in breach of duty or contract by failing to protect her interests in the drafting of certain clauses of the settlement agreement.
