The High Court has halted a legal costs adjudication involving a claim of approximately €3.2 million after finding arguable grounds for a judicial review challenge over alleged gaps in invoices, time records and other supporting material.
Ann Nolan, Elizabeth Nolan, Joan Nolan, Richard Nolan, Patricia Nolan, Sally Nolan and Quest Capital Trustees Limited are liable under High Court and Court of Appeal costs orders made in 2024. A bill of costs was presented in September 2025 and ultimately listed for adjudication on 14 and 15 May 2026.
The applicants argued that the bill and accompanying documentation did not comply with the requirements of Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Their costs accountant, Darragh O’Sullivan, said outstanding material included invoices, time records, accounting information and VAT documentation across several firms and entities.
He told the court that the size and complexity of the approximately €3.2 million claim meant material produced immediately before the hearing could not realistically be reconciled and assessed properly.
The Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator had previously indicated that the adjudication would proceed and that issues concerning invoices and VAT could be addressed during the hearing. The applicants argued that their two formal applications raising documentary deficiencies had not been substantively determined and that no direction had been made accepting a non-conforming bill for adjudication.
Ms Justice Sara Phelan held that these complaints raised arguable grounds for judicial review. She also found that the statutory review mechanisms available after an adjudication did not provide an effective alternative remedy in circumstances where the alleged information deficit affected the applicants’ ability to participate in the hearing itself.
Applying the test for interim relief, the judge concluded that the greater risk of injustice lay in allowing the adjudication to proceed immediately.
She therefore granted leave on specified grounds and stayed the costs adjudication pending determination of the judicial review. The ruling does not decide whether the bill is defective or what amount, if any, is ultimately payable.