The High Court ordered interim payments to a receiver and his solicitors but did not finally assess either account, finding that the material supplied did not adequately explain the amounts claimed.
Mr Justice Michael White delivered the judgment on 21 February 2014, following a motion heard on 10 December 2013. The receiver, appointed to wind up a dissolved family partnership that held commercial properties in Dublin, sought directions on rent-recovery proceedings, payment of his fees and legal costs, and authority to distribute the partnership’s remaining assets.
The court directed payment on account of €63,000 to the receiver, plus VAT of €14,490, for a total of €77,490. It said the receiver’s claim of €180,436.65 for work from 12 November 2011 was not sufficiently particularised. The court identified discrepancies between the hours claimed and the timesheets supplied, and required an explanation and a more detailed account before finalising the receiver’s fees. It also directed that specified amounts relating to Canada Life, court duties and a rental refund be finalised unless another party objected.
For the solicitors’ costs, the court allowed an interim payment of €128,558, including VAT and listed outlays and fees. It said the bill’s large instruction fee lacked enough detail and identified an incorrect credit and what appeared to be duplicated charges. The court said the parties could make a further attempt to agree the costs; if the court were to measure them, it expected expert evidence from the plaintiffs on their challenge.
The court disallowed fees for work on rent-arrears proceedings against Su Pin Chen, saying the proceedings should not continue. It allowed the outlay on the Civil Bill and payment to the summons server. In relation to proceedings against Anne Byrne, it said the receiver should decide whether to discontinue if recovery was unlikely; the court could not identify a separate fee claimed for that work. It also required a separate costs statement for proceedings involving Nova Travel Limited and John and Maureen O’Donoghue. The receiver had indicated he was prepared to finalise those proceedings, but the court said he had to execute the existing orders.
The partnership properties had been sold during the receivership. The motion sought liberty to distribute the remaining assets, but the judgment’s operative directions set out here concern interim payments and further accounting; it does not record a final distribution order.