The High Court granted Kent Carty Solicitors summary judgment against Mr H for taxed fees arising from family proceedings, plus interest. It rejected his request to have the debt claim sent to a plenary hearing, finding that his affidavit evidence disclosed no arguable defence.
The court said Mr H’s engagement of the solicitors was not disputed. The fees had been taxed, and that process had previously been reviewed and upheld in Carty & ors v Mr H [2016] IEHC 617. The judge said the objections raised in the current application echoed issues addressed in that earlier judgment and did not need to be reconsidered in detail.
Mr H’s contentions were treated as including allegations of conspiracy, deceit, professional misbehaviour, professional negligence and breach of contract, although the judge said it was unclear whether all were still being advanced. The court stressed that the allegations were unproven. It noted that Mr H had not begun a claim or counterclaim over the alleged conduct.
The judgment said any complaint about professional misbehaviour could be made to the Law Society, but would not provide a defence to the debt claim. It found no evidence supporting conspiracy or deceit. On the possible negligence claim, the judge said the solicitors had engaged competent senior counsel and acted on counsel’s advice in the family proceedings. The judgment concluded that a negligence claim against the solicitors on that basis appeared doomed to fail.
Mr H also asserted that he and his solicitor had an oral fee cap. The judge found nothing beyond his assertion to support the alleged agreement. The solicitors had sent section 68 correspondence setting out chargeable fees without mentioning a cap. The court held that a bare assertion of an oral contract was insufficient to establish an arguable defence requiring a plenary hearing.
Applying the summary judgment principles cited in Aer Rianta and Harrisrange, the court concluded it was very clear that Mr H had no case, the points raised disclosed no issue requiring trial, and his affidavit evidence revealed no arguable defence. It therefore entered summary judgment for the solicitors for the debt plus interest. The judgment does not state the amount awarded.