The High Court ruled that a €60,000 settlement agreed on 7 May 2013 was to be divided into €35,000 for Neil and Elizabeth Reidy and €25,000 for their solicitors, John A. Sinnot and Company, towards legal costs and outlay.
Mr Justice Hedigan was deciding the narrow issue of how the settlement sum was to be allocated. The underlying action concerned an allegation of fraud against solicitor Eric H.W. Bradshaw, practising as W. & E. Bradshaw Solicitors. The judgment says most of the case appeared statute-barred, with fraudulent concealment considered the only part likely to survive. The defendant’s legal team was reluctant to make an offer because of the fraud allegation, but was concerned about the cost of defending a five-day case.
The judge heard conflicting accounts of the negotiations. The plaintiffs said they had rejected allocating €25,000 of the settlement to costs and wanted those costs taxed. The defendant’s senior counsel said the plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that increasing the amount for the plaintiffs could make settlement possible. The judge accepted evidence from the solicitors and counsel involved that the €60,000 figure was agreed on the basis of €35,000 in damages and €25,000 for costs and outlay.
A letter sent by the plaintiffs’ solicitor on the day of settlement set out that division. The first plaintiff said he had tried to send a response disputing the costs allocation and later posted it; the solicitors said they received neither. The judge found the alleged 7 May email or letter had probably been concocted later and had not been sent. He also found that the plaintiffs raised duress and sought a bill of costs on 13 May, after earlier correspondence that did not mention a dispute.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had agreed to the allocation at the time. It held that the €60,000 was an all-in sum comprising damages and agreed costs, rather than a damages-only payment. The judgment therefore found that the cited provisions of the Solicitors Act 1994 did not arise. It also noted a written agreement between the plaintiffs and their solicitors dated 1 December 2010 in relation to the 1870 Act. The court’s decision addressed the settlement allocation; the judgment does not state that it determined the underlying fraud claim.