The Court of Appeal dismissed C B’s appeal against summary judgment for James Wall Solicitors, but reduced the judgment from €216,717.84 to €208,685.94 to reflect an adjustment offered by the firm. The court also gave a preliminary view that C B should pay the firm’s appeal costs, with a short hearing available if she wished to contest that proposed order.
The appeal concerned fees for legal services provided to C B in family law proceedings and related matters. She argued, among other things, that the firm had done substantial work for a company jointly owned by her and her then husband, and that the company should bear some of the fees. The firm maintained that it had acted for C B personally. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that there was no evidence the firm had undertaken work for the company.
The High Court granted summary judgment in April 2020. It had found that the firm’s fee documents complied with the relevant statutory requirements and that C B had not sought taxation of the bill within the applicable period. It declined to use its inherent jurisdiction to refer the bill for taxation. Although C B later raised alleged errors in the account, the Court of Appeal said those issues had not been developed at the High Court hearing and could not be investigated for the first time on appeal.
The appeal court also rejected C B’s claim that the account had inexplicably increased by €110,000 in a week in August 2013. It said the documents compared different totals: the later interim fee note covered fees accrued since 2011 and took account of earlier payments. The balance stated as due on 22 August 2013 was €79,873.22, rather than the full €183,892.12 shown in the note.
The firm had agreed, without admitting that any error existed, to reduce the judgment by €8,031.90. The Court of Appeal ordered that the judgment amount be varied accordingly and otherwise affirmed the High Court order. It also released the firm from undertakings that had temporarily restricted enforcement and registration of a judgment mortgage over C B’s property. The judgment was delivered on 29 July 2022.