The High Court has ordered solicitor Gerard Gannon to deliver two case files to the clients’ new solicitors, subject to reimbursement of €1,013.05 in outlays and an undertaking to preserve his lien over the files.
The order, made by Miss Justice Laffoy on 17 July 2006, applies to proceedings Michael Mulheir and Marie Arnold brought against the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others. The files must be delivered to Keans, or another firm of solicitors that comes on record in those proceedings, within two weeks after the conditions are met.
The judge directed that the new solicitors hold the files subject to Gannon’s lien and return them to him when the proceedings conclude. Delivery is also without prejudice to his claim for costs. The court did not order the files handed directly to the plaintiffs.
Gannon had retained the files after his retainer ended in May 2003. The judgment records that he recommended the plaintiffs obtain other representation, effectively ending the retainer. He said their relationship with his office had deteriorated because of their behaviour; the plaintiffs disputed that account. The judge said the conflict could not be resolved on affidavit evidence and, for this application, assumed Gannon had discharged himself for reasonable cause.
The court treated Gannon as having a lien and assumed, for the purposes of the application, that costs were owed. It did not decide whether costs were actually due or resolve the plaintiffs’ arguments about the lien. Those issues, including the effect of Gannon’s failure to provide a detailed bill or have costs taxed, were for the Taxing Master to address in the first instance.
The judgment says Gannon had not submitted a detailed bill or taken steps to have his costs taxed, despite more than two and a half years passing since the retainer ended. The court weighed that default against him. It also rejected his position that he was entitled to an unconditional undertaking from the new solicitors to pay his costs and outlays.
The order concerns only the two actions initiated by Gannon on the plaintiffs’ behalf. The judgment separately identifies other pending proceedings initiated by Mulheir in person, including plenary and judicial review proceedings; the order does not direct delivery of files for those cases.