The High Court has granted James Lucey & Company a charge over certain estate costs payable to William Naylor, but refused the firm’s request to secure its claimed fees against a 122-acre farm in County Tipperary.
In a judgment delivered on 21 November 2024, Mr Justice Oisín Quinn capped the charge at €351,000. It applies to sums paid to Naylor by the estate’s administrator in respect of costs orders made in his favour in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The court did not decide how much is ultimately due in fees, and the parties’ dispute over that amount and Naylor’s liability remains for the Legal Costs Adjudicator.
The costs arose from Naylor’s successful claim to ownership of his late father’s farm. The High Court found in 2012 that he was entitled to the farm on the basis of proprietary estoppel, but rejected his separate challenge to his father’s last will. The Court of Appeal dismissed his sister Jean Maher’s appeal in 2018, subject to Naylor disclaiming a €150,000 bequest. It also reduced his High Court costs entitlement to 75%, while awarding him his full appeal costs. Both awards were designated costs in the administration of the estate.
The firm said a further €351,853.50 was due for counsel’s fees from the earlier proceedings. Naylor had paid senior counsel €30,000 in advance. He says he understood that any further counsel fees would be paid from estate funds, rather than his personal resources. The firm disputes that understanding. Both sides accepted that the fee arrangement and other objections should be addressed through the statutory costs adjudication process, rather than resolved on this application.
The estate is insolvent, and the court had separately concluded that the executor’s and administrator’s costs take priority. The firm argued that the farm was the most realistic remaining source for its claimed fees. But the judge noted that Naylor was not said to be insolvent or planning to sell or charge the farm, and that there was a real prospect his liability might be limited to costs recovered from the estate. Those circumstances weighed against imposing a charge on the farm.
The court refused the application insofar as it sought a charge over the lands in Folios 21455 and 18131. It allowed for either side to apply again if circumstances materially change, including as a result of the costs adjudication.