The Court of Appeal has dismissed William Mulrooney’s appeal against a High Court order approving a legal costs adjudication arising from long-running litigation. It found no grounds to disturb the High Court’s ruling.
The dispute stems from proceedings that began after a lease between Mulrooney’s father and Edward Malone. Malone sued Mulrooney and his father in 2002, claiming the lease had been wrongfully repudiated, and was awarded damages. An appeal was settled before its hearing, with agreed damages paid. Further proceedings followed.
In the action underlying the costs dispute, Mulrooney sought to obtain Malone’s original lease from solicitors Dolph McGrath and Nicholas Shee, practising as John Shee and Co. The High Court dismissed that action in 2016 as an abuse of process and made an Isaac Wunder order against Mulrooney. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in 2017, and the Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal.
The solicitors later obtained costs orders from the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. As the parties did not agree on the costs, they were referred to the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator, who issued a determination in November 2022. The adjudicator reduced the solicitors’ instruction fee from €19,000 to €15,000 and made minor reductions to counsel’s fees.
Mulrooney sought a High Court review of that determination. His main complaint was that he could not properly contest the bill without seeing the solicitors’ files, including timesheets and rates. The adjudicator said deciding whether privilege should be lifted was a matter for the court, not within the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, and advised Mulrooney to apply to the High Court. He did not make that application.
The High Court approved the adjudication in January 2024. The judge said the application before the court was not a valid application for discovery or for removal of privilege, and considered the complaint about the figures in the report. Mulrooney’s later motion to admit new evidence, which again sought access to the files, was rejected.
The Court of Appeal said the authority Mulrooney relied on, Loomes v Rippington, was not relevant to his application. It concluded he had not established grounds to overturn the High Court ruling and dismissed the appeal.
On costs of the appeal, the court’s provisional view was that the respondents, having been wholly successful, should receive their costs. Mulrooney may dispute that view through written submissions of no more than 1,000 words within 14 days of the judgment; the respondents may reply within 14 days after that. If costs are not agreed, they are to be referred to adjudication. The court declined to measure them itself.