The Supreme Court has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear an application by solicitors Matheson for a charge over costs awarded to their client, Lett and Company Limited. The Court decided only the jurisdiction question; the merits of the application remain for a further hearing.
Matheson applied under section 3 of the Legal Practitioners (Ireland) Act 1876 for a charge over costs awarded in the company’s proceedings against Wexford Borough Council, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland and the Attorney General. The firm also sought ancillary orders concerning €500,000 paid on account of costs and any further amount found due after taxation. It separately claimed a common-law lien.
The underlying case concerned the company’s mussel beds in Wexford Harbour. It sought damages over an exclusion zone around a proposed waste-treatment plant outfall. The High Court awarded €1.15 million in damages in 2007. On appeal, the Supreme Court reduced the award to €650,000 in 2012, while affirming the High Court costs order and awarding the company its appeal costs.
Matheson said about €1.128 million, including VAT, remained due for professional fees, costs and expenses. The company disputed the relief sought and raised concerns about the legal costs, including the length of the High Court hearing and the absence of a full VAT invoice. Pine Investments, which had acquired the company’s loan from the liquidators of IBRC, contended that the costs were receivables covered by a mortgage debenture and should be remitted to it. These were competing positions before the Court, not findings made in this judgment.
Justice Dunne held that the costs orders were “property recovered or preserved” within section 3. Because the Supreme Court’s 2012 order affirmed the High Court costs order and awarded appeal costs, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to consider a statutory charging-order application concerning those costs. The Court rejected the argument that the application had to be heard in the High Court.
The Court did not decide whether Matheson should receive a charge or make the requested ancillary orders. Those questions were left for a further hearing. It also held that, although it could consider the statutory application and appropriate ancillary relief, it had no jurisdiction to enforce Matheson’s common-law lien.