The High Court has directed that a solicitor-client bill served on Gerard and Margaret McElhinney be referred for taxation, despite the delay in bringing the application. Mr Justice Tony O’Connor made the order under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, finding exceptional circumstances in the solicitor’s earlier agreement to taxation and uncertainty about an earlier process before a Taxing Master.
The McElhinneys engaged solicitor Patrick Delaney in 2003 in connection with an agreement involving the sale of property in Stoneybatter, Dublin, in exchange for money and apartment development. In 2007, Mr Delaney sent them an amended fee note for €96,800, including €16,800 VAT. A 2012 statement of account recorded payment of that sum from the property sale proceeds.
The plaintiffs disputed Mr Delaney’s account of when they questioned the fees. Their evidence was that a breakdown of trust followed his conduct and that the statement of account was issued only after Mrs McElhinney requested a bill. The court said it could not resolve disputed factual issues on the affidavits before it. It also noted the plaintiffs’ denial that they had received the section 68 fee estimate letters Mr Delaney said he had provided; the judgment records that copies had not been furnished to them.
In a July 2013 letter, Mr Delaney said the fees could be taxed if the clients had queries and that he would facilitate the process. A summons to tax issued in April 2014. The parties later disagreed about whether the matter had been struck out or adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter. The judgment said there was a lack of clarity about what the Taxing Master did in 2015.
The defendant opposed use of the court’s inherent jurisdiction, relying on the time limits in the Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Act 1849 and arguing that the plaintiffs had not explained their delay. The court accepted that they could be blamed for delay and stressed that inherent jurisdiction should not lightly displace the statutory regime. It nevertheless concluded that Mr Delaney’s agreement to taxation, the unclear 2015 position and the court’s role in supervising solicitors supported an order in this exceptional case.
The order concerns the solicitor-client bill served on 12 July 2013. The judgment does not determine the disputed fees or set the amount payable. It records the plaintiffs’ cost accountants’ estimate that fees and outlays of about €80,000 plus VAT might tax at €50,000 plus VAT; those figures were submissions, not findings.