The High Court has ordered solicitor John Condon to be committed to prison unless or until he pays €23,000 to Nikolaus David Sean Boulting, executor of two estates. The ruling concerns Condon’s failure to comply with a court order requiring payment of that sum within seven days.
In a ruling delivered on 31 July 2015, President of the High Court Kearns said the 18 May order had not been obeyed, despite adjournments and opportunities for Condon to comply. The court directed that he be committed unless he purges his contempt by paying the €23,000 as ordered. It expressly described the committal as coercive, rather than a fixed-term punishment.
The payment dispute arose during the administration of the estates of Jennifer Maud Elinor Davidson and James Norris Goddard Davidson. Boulting had instructed Condon in relation to both estates, but later transferred the retainer to another solicitor. Condon handed over files and most of the money but retained funds, saying they were due for fees and connected to undertakings. Boulting sought an account and payment of the estate funds.
Seven earlier fee notes totalling €88,732.50 had been paid. Condon later retained €35,000 in fees, and the court directed him to provide a detailed bill. After hearing submissions about the fees and work done, the court ordered him on 18 May to pay €23,000 within seven days, leaving either side able to pursue legal proceedings over any disputed balance.
Boulting’s counsel alleged repeated delay and non-compliance with court directions. Condon denied trying to frustrate the proceedings. He said he had been considering an appeal and lodged papers on the last day, but the Court of Appeal office did not accept them because a copy of the order was required. He acknowledged that he had not sought a stay or an extension of time from the High Court.
The ruling applied principles from the Supreme Court’s decision in Laois County Council v Hanrahan, distinguishing coercive orders intended to secure compliance from punitive committal for past conduct. The High Court’s order addresses compliance with the 18 May direction; it does not determine any remaining dispute over fees.