The Court of Appeal has made no order as to costs after allowing solicitor Doran W. O’Toole to come off record for Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd. in an existing appeal. The ruling, delivered on 14 November 2023, dealt only with the costs of that application.
The court had granted Mr. O’Toole’s application in a judgment delivered on 25 May 2023, despite opposition by Scotchstone through its director, Piotr Skoczylas. It had found that the solicitor-client relationship had broken down irretrievably. The parties then filed written submissions on costs.
Mr. O’Toole sought the costs of his application, arguing that he had succeeded and that Mr. Skoczylas had opposed the motion despite having instructed him to come off record. Mr. Skoczylas sought costs for the company. He relied on decisions concerning solicitors who sought to leave cases after insurers repudiated cover, and argued that Mr. O’Toole’s conduct and handling of the retainer should be considered.
The court rejected the company’s arguments for costs. It said the cases cited by Mr. Skoczylas involved different circumstances, including an insurer’s decision to withdraw cover, and did not establish that Scotchstone should receive costs here. The court also said it could not use disputed allegations between Mr. O’Toole and Mr. Skoczylas as the basis for a costs award, having previously found that many of those disputes could not be resolved in the application to come off record.
The court did not treat the costs question as a dispute between opposing parties under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It said the issue arose from the breakdown of a solicitor-client relationship and should be decided under its inherent jurisdiction over costs.
In considering Mr. O’Toole’s request, the court weighed his success and the vigorous opposition to his application against the fact that he had recently been the company’s solicitor. It also considered its earlier criticism of his handling of evidence during the motion, including an adjournment after he tried to refer to material not properly before the court, and its refusal to admit new evidence that had not been served on the company.
The court concluded that justice was best served by making no order as to costs. It did not award costs to either Mr. O’Toole or Scotchstone. The underlying appeal was not decided by this costs ruling.