The High Court has refused Frank Harte’s application to challenge rulings on legal fees that led to a judgment against him, holding that the issues had already been determined and could not be reopened in property enforcement proceedings.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 9 June 2023 in proceedings brought by Hugh Carty, John P. Carty, H. Gavan Carty and Shane Carty, practising as Kent Carty Solicitors. The proceedings seek well charging orders and orders for sale in relation to judgment mortgages registered against properties held in Mr Harte’s name. Geraldine Quail was joined because it was suggested she might have a beneficial interest in some of the properties. She took no part in the motion addressed by the judgment.
The underlying debt arose from legal services provided in family law proceedings in 2009 and 2010. In 2015, the Taxing Master assessed the solicitors’ general instructions fee at €30,000 and senior and junior counsel’s brief fees at €12,600 and €8,400. The High Court upheld the Taxing Master’s rulings in a review decided in 2016. A separate 2017 judgment in the summary proceedings was followed by an appeal that was withdrawn. In June 2019, the Court of Appeal made a consent order a rule of court. Its terms provided for a €160,000 settlement, with interest at 2% per year, and allowed enforcement of the judgment if scheduled payments were not made.
Mr Harte’s January 2023 motion sought, among other reliefs, to quash the Taxing Master’s 2015 ruling and stay the enforcement proceedings while he pursued a further challenge. He also sought to have hearings held in camera because the debt related to family law proceedings.
The judge held that the 2016 review had upheld the Taxing Master’s decisions and had not been appealed. He said res judicata barred relitigating those matters; grounds that could have been raised in the earlier challenge were also caught by the rule in Henderson v Henderson. The 2017 judgment and the consent order provided a further obstacle to a collateral challenge through the current proceedings.
The court also said the motion used the wrong procedure. A challenge should have been brought through a statutory review or, in principle, judicial review, and the time limits for either route had long expired. The judge rejected the request for private hearings, finding no basis to displace the default of public justice in these proceedings.
All reliefs sought in Mr Harte’s motion were refused. The judgment did not determine the underlying well charging and sale claims. The judge’s provisional view was that the plaintiffs were entitled to their costs of the motion, but allowed Mr Harte an opportunity to argue for a different costs order. The matter was listed for directions and costs on 19 June 2023.