The High Court has ordered a former client’s legal costs dispute with Maples and Calder solicitors to be referred to the Taxing Master for taxation, despite a pending complaint to the Law Society and a separate negligence action.
In a judgment delivered on 18 July 2011, Miss Justice Laffoy directed that the firm’s bill be taxed on a solicitor and client basis. The application was brought by 14 named partners of the firm under section 2 of the Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Act 1849. The defendant, Frank Woods, did not oppose taxation in principle, but asked the court to defer it until the Law Society had determined his complaint.
The firm had been retained in October 2008. It later issued proceedings on Woods’s instructions against Patrick Whelan and Patrick Chesser. Adams Solicitors replaced Maples and Calder as solicitors on record in August 2009. In July 2009, while seeking the transfer of case documents, Woods had requested taxation of the fees and reserved his rights concerning alleged loss arising from the firm’s advice.
The firm sent Woods a bill prepared by its legal costs accountants on 4 June 2010. After correspondence about taxation and service, the firm applied to the High Court by special summons. Woods argued that the firm had been negligent and that the claimed costs were not validly due. His solicitors had also complained to the Law Society, seeking a refund of fees already paid and no further fees. The court was not told how the Society had responded. Woods had separately initiated negligence proceedings against the firm on 24 June 2011.
The judge said the taxation process was the proper forum for raising issues about the bill. The question of Woods’s liability for the fees was not before the court. Nor did the order determine whether the firm had been negligent or what action, if any, the Law Society would take.
The court held that the firm was entitled to apply for taxation within the statutory period and that the pending complaint and negligence case did not make taxation unnecessary or justify a stay. It also rejected the defendant’s age and health as grounds to delay the process, noting he could retain a professional representative. The order sends the bill for assessment; it does not establish that the amount claimed is payable.