The High Court has confirmed two determinations of legal costs against Cormac Lohan, a director and shareholder of Lohan Consulting Limited, which is in liquidation. The costs orders arose from applications brought by the company’s official liquidator, Aidan Garcia Diaz, during the liquidation.
Ms Justice Eileen Roberts said Mr Lohan’s motions for review under section 161 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 were issued outside the 21-day period. She nevertheless dealt with them in the particular circumstances because Mr Lohan had earlier issued identical motions within 21 days of the costs determination, then agreed to have them struck out on consent after the liquidator’s solicitors said the section 160 process was incomplete. The court did not decide the broader question of whether the statutory deadline can be extended.
One costs order followed a motion seeking Mr Lohan’s compliance with a court direction to file and serve a statement of affairs for the company. After he provided a compliant statement, the motion was struck out and costs were awarded to the liquidator. The other order followed a motion seeking to cross-examine Mr Lohan about the company’s books and records. The High Court allowed that application and awarded the liquidator its costs. Neither order was appealed.
The Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator determined costs of €12,514 for the order dated 15 July 2019 and €16,481 for the order dated 29 April 2019, after deductions from the sums claimed. Mr Lohan argued that the costs were excessive and that the adjudicator should have required a detailed breakdown of time spent. He also argued that the liquidator’s motions were unnecessary.
The judge said the adjudicator’s role was to assess the amount of costs on the basis of the High Court orders, not to revisit whether the underlying motions were necessary. She held that the adjudicator had to consider time spent as part of the overall assessment, but was not required to have a detailed time breakdown where he could assess the work from the documents and files.
The court found that Mr Lohan had not demonstrated an error in the adjudication or injustice resulting from it. It confirmed both determinations. The matter was listed for mention on 21 June to address the costs of the review application, the final form of order and any other issue arising from the judgment; the judgment did not itself determine those matters.