The Supreme Court has remitted a solicitors’ application over costs from a commercial case to the High Court, finding that both courts had jurisdiction to consider a statutory charge but that the High Court was the appropriate forum in the circumstances.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice William M. McKechnie on 10 March 2015, concerned an application by Lett & Company Limited’s solicitors under section 3 of the Legal Practitioners (Ireland) Act 1876. The firm sought a charge over costs awarded to the company, payment of €500,000 already held in its client account, and directions concerning the remaining costs. The underlying party and party costs assessment had not concluded.
The solicitors said that €1,128,408, including VAT, remained due for fees, expenses and outlay. The judgment records that the State had paid €500,000 on account in October 2013 and that the funds remained in the solicitors’ client account. Pine Investment, which had bought a portfolio of loans and related securities that included the company’s debt, maintained that the proceeds of taxation were covered by its mortgage security and should be remitted to it. Those matters formed part of a wider dispute; the court did not decide the solicitors’ entitlement to the funds or the merits of the other requested relief.
The preliminary issue was whether the Supreme Court could hear the statutory charge application and, if so, whether it should do so. Mr Justice McKechnie concluded that section 3 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction because its earlier costs order had produced a fund that could be subject to a charge. He also found that the High Court had concurrent jurisdiction. He read the earlier Supreme Court decision in *Lismore Buildings Limited v Bank of Ireland Finance Ltd (No. 2)* as confirming jurisdiction in the circumstances of that case, not as establishing that the Supreme Court was the exclusive venue.
The judge said an application should generally begin in the High Court where the courts share jurisdiction, unless compelling circumstances point elsewhere. Here, the underlying case had ended, affidavits raised contested factual issues, and the Supreme Court could deal with only one of the four substantive forms of relief sought. Hearing that issue there could split the proceedings and potentially involve the Supreme Court at both first-instance and appeal stages.
The Supreme Court therefore declined jurisdiction to hear the section 3 application and remitted the matter to the High Court for all disputed issues arising from the application to be heard and determined. The judgment expressed no view on whether section 3 was constitutional.