The High Court has sent a solicitor’s €381,277.43 claim against Stephen and Marina Hatton to a plenary hearing, after finding that the defendants had met the threshold of an arguable defence. The court made no finding on whether they owe the claimed amount or whether another company agreed to pay the costs.
The proceedings were brought by Cormac Lohan, practising as Lohan & Co. Solicitors, to recover fees said to relate to High Court litigation concerning a mortgage in favour of Danske Bank. The claim was based on a bill of costs dated 8 March 2017, addressed to the defendants and Edenfarms Ltd.
The judgment records a €170,000 professional fee, plus VAT, and counsel’s fees totalling €136,100, plus VAT. Justice Garrett Simons said the bill provided sparse detail given the sums involved. The papers before the court did not show that the defendants had received an updated fee estimate after an initial engagement letter requested €10,000 upfront, or that they had been told they could seek independent adjudication of the bill. The fees had not been adjudicated.
The defendants maintained that there was a collateral agreement under which Moralltach Ltd would provide a loan to cover their Danske Bank indebtedness and discharge the legal costs. Lohan denied that such an agreement existed. Justice Simons said this factual dispute could not be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. He also identified questions about whether the summary summons met the requirements for summary proceedings and whether the bill was detailed enough to rely on the relevant statutory provisions.
Lohan accepted that the case should proceed to a plenary hearing and agreed to the defendants having the option of referring the costs for adjudication. The court remitted the proceedings under Order 37, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The defendants have liberty to defend the claim generally, not only on grounds set out in their affidavits.
As a condition of remittal, the defendants may seek an order referring the costs for adjudication by applying to the court within three months of 31 March 2023. The judge said this option was intended to avoid prejudice from the bill’s limited detail and the apparent lack of an accurate fee estimate. It is for the defendants, with advice from their new lawyers, to decide whether to pursue adjudication.
The plaintiff was directed to deliver a statement of claim within six weeks, followed by four weeks for the defence and two weeks for a reply. The case was listed for mention on 19 April 2023. These were directions for the next stage; the judgment did not determine the defendants’ liability for the costs.