The High Court refused a solicitor’s application for summary judgment against former client John Joyce over fees claimed in an employment dispute. It referred the unpaid fee note and fees to taxation, a process for assessing the bill, but did not decide how much Joyce ultimately owes.
In a judgment delivered on 26 May 2016, Mr Justice Max Barrett said Joyce had raised concerns about the charges from the outset. The judgment records a claim of about €135,000 in fees from the plaintiff solicitors, on top of about €50,000 still owed to a previous firm for the same employment dispute.
Joyce questioned, among other items, how 126 hours at a stated rate of €350 an hour could produce a €55,000 charge. The firm attributed the difference to instruction fees, urgency and expertise. He also queried counsel’s fees, including a €7,500 consultation with senior counsel and €41,000 charged by junior counsel. The judgment notes a further €5,000 bill for a court stenographer.
Justice Barrett found that the bill had not been paid and that Joyce had queried it from the outset. He considered the scale of the claimed liabilities a special circumstance supporting referral to taxation under the Solicitors (Ireland) Act 1849. He said the court could also have referred the fees under its inherent jurisdiction.
The judge separately considered whether the claim was suitable for summary judgment, which requires the court to be satisfied that there is no arguable defence. He said there was a real and legitimate dispute about the liabilities and it was not clear that Joyce had no defence. The application was therefore unsuitable for summary judgment.
The court declined to grant summary judgment and ordered the fee note and fees to be taxed. The judgment did not cancel the charges or determine the final bill. It observed that Joyce would likely still have to pay many thousands of euro after taxation, while the assessment could reduce the liability.
The judgment records that Joyce had been dismissed from Bank of Ireland, later reinstated through an internal review, and subsequently demoted, which he claimed was wrongful. It does not determine that employment dispute.