The High Court has referred two disputed bills from a land sale matter to taxation and directed the Taxing Master to examine the solicitor’s charges from 2000 onwards, subject to conditions about proper bills and voluntary payment.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 25 March 2013, concerns a fee dispute between Denis Doyle and his former solicitor, Joe Buckley, who practised as J Buckley and Company Solicitors. The judge made no finding at this stage on whether the fees were excessive or whether money had been taken without the client’s consent.
Doyle alleged that he paid or was charged €900,000 in fees between 1998 and 2011, and that some charges were deducted without his consent. Buckley’s position was that the fees had been agreed. The judgment says some conveyancing charges may have exceeded professionally recommended percentage levels, but Buckley said Doyle had specifically approved them.
The dispute includes a €600,000 deposit Doyle said he paid to Buckley in May 2006 to hold in the solicitor’s client account in connection with the sale of land to Sandystream Developments Ltd. After the purchaser forfeited the deposit and went into liquidation, €35,000 in agreed fees had to be paid. Doyle claimed that, by January 2010, €565,000 remained held for him and that he later asked for its release. Buckley said the funds were held against fees, expenses and interest due from Doyle and his siblings. An affidavit indicated that €45,146.99 of the deposit and bank interest remained. These are disputed claims and evidence recounted in the judgment, not findings on liability.
The court said it could not determine from the material then filed whether proper bills had been furnished or whether Doyle had knowingly agreed to pay them. Bills must meet prescribed requirements, and the statutory time limits for seeking taxation depend on delivery of a valid bill. The judge also recognised the court’s inherent jurisdiction to order taxation, while cautioning that it should not lightly disregard statutory limits.
Bills D215 and D226, relating to the Sandystream matter, were referred to taxation. For charges from 2000 onwards, all charges must be proved before the Taxing Master. Where a proper bill and Doyle’s voluntary payment are established, taxation is to be rejected. Where no proper bill was furnished, or voluntary payment is not apparent, taxation was ordered. The Master may decide whether a proper bill was supplied and whether voluntary payment occurred. The court did not direct taxation of charges dating back to 1998 as a whole.