The Supreme Court has dismissed Patrick Vesey’s appeal against an order directing that the available balance of party and party costs from his personal injury case be paid to his former solicitors, Kent Carty Solicitors. The court also upheld costs awards against him in favour of Kent Carty and solicitor Fabian Cadden.
The dispute concerned an undertaking given in 1999, after Kent Carty’s retainer was withdrawn. Vesey authorised Cadden to undertake to pay Kent Carty’s taxed bill from the net costs recovered in the personal injury proceedings, after specified prior payments. The High Court later ordered the remaining costs paid to Kent Carty. Cadden did not claim any share for himself.
Vesey challenged the order, raising allegations about the solicitors’ conduct and disputing service of a 2006 motion that led to an order preserving the costs. The Supreme Court said those complaints were outside the narrow issue in this appeal. It held that Vesey had not appealed the 2006 order, sought an extension of time to do so, or applied under the court rules to have it set aside. He could not use this appeal to mount a collateral challenge to that order.
The court also said the 2006 order only preserved the costs while the dispute was considered; it did not determine who would ultimately receive them. A later order directed that the money be paid into court pending resolution. The service dispute and intervening steps did not affect Vesey’s rights relevant to the payment decision under appeal, the judgment said.
On the payment issue, the Supreme Court agreed that Vesey had signed the authority and retainer and that Cadden had given the undertaking with his authorisation. It held that Kent Carty was entitled to recover fees for work up to the end of its retainer in May 1999, to the extent funds were available. The court also rejected Vesey’s challenge to the costs awards made in the High Court, finding the single issue had been decided against him and no significant reason had been shown to depart from the usual rule.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice William M. McKechnie on 16 December 2016.