The High Court dismissed Giles J. Kennedy’s claim for €261,187.88 in further interest on legal costs, ruling that no further sum was due from the Law Society of Ireland. Mr Justice George Birmingham delivered judgment on 10 March 2008.
The dispute concerned the period for which interest was payable and the sum on which it should be calculated. Kennedy argued that interest should run from an October 1999 High Court costs order. The Society said it should run only from a later costs order made in July 2003. The parties also disagreed over whether interest should be based on the full amount of Kennedy’s taxed costs or the smaller net amount paid after costs were set off against each other.
The earlier proceedings had included a successful appeal by Kennedy to the Supreme Court. In January 2002, that court set aside the 1999 costs order and reserved the High Court costs until the damages issue was resolved. In July 2003, after dismissing Kennedy’s damages claim, the High Court awarded costs to both sides and ordered that they be set off against each other. The Supreme Court dismissed both sides’ appeals against the 2003 decision in June 2005.
The costs were taxed in November 2006. Kennedy’s costs were assessed at €1,121,763.99 and the Society’s at €352,275.49. The Society paid the difference, €769,488.50, that day.
Justice Birmingham said the Supreme Court could have replaced the 1999 costs order with an award of costs to Kennedy, which would have supported his claim for interest from that earlier date. Instead, it reserved the costs issue for the High Court because the damages claim remained unresolved. The High Court made the operative costs award in July 2003, and Kennedy had no entitlement to those costs before then.
The judge also rejected the basis of Kennedy’s calculation, which used the full taxed costs without accounting for the set-off required by the 2003 order. He concluded that Kennedy was entitled to interest from the July 2003 award until payment in November 2006, and that this interest had been paid. The ruling decided this claim for further interest; it did not revisit the earlier damages decision.