The High Court reduced the fees claimed by a receiver and solicitors in a partnership receivership, finding the receivership had taken too long and that its fees, if not reduced, would represent too high a share of the assets realised.
In a judgment delivered on 18 November 2014, Mr Justice Michael White dealt with outstanding fee issues after an earlier judgment in the case on 21 February 2014. The receiver had sought €180,437 in professional fees, including VAT, and €281,142.28 in legal fees, including VAT and outlay. The court had previously ordered payments on account of €77,490 to the receiver and €110,700 towards legal fees.
The court allowed a reduced total receiver’s fee of €149,194 after deductions and credits. With €77,490 already paid, it ordered a further €71,704 due to the receiver. It also allowed €6,074.74 in legal fees after accounting for the sums claimed, deductions and the €110,700 already paid. For work in progress, the court allowed a total of €40,440.71; after crediting €35,551.65 already paid, it found a further €10,963.80 due. The remaining legal fees therefore totalled €17,038.54.
The judge reduced the receiver’s professional fee by 25%, including a 5% reduction the receiver had offered voluntarily. The court accepted that the receiver and legal advisers had done substantial and difficult work, but noted that the partnership proceedings had been compromised in January 2010, after the first receiver was appointed in April 2009 and replaced in July that year.
The court also adjusted fees connected with separate proceedings. It disallowed fees for the Circuit Court proceedings against Su Pin Chen and directed credits to the partnership. In the High Court proceedings against Ann Byrne, it allowed €6,000 in legal fees and €600 in receiver’s fees, reducing the amounts claimed. Costs of €48,272.34 relating to the Nova Travel Limited proceedings against John O’Donohue and Maureen O’Donohue were to be treated as a separate issue and finalised when those outstanding proceedings concluded.
The judgment left some matters requiring clarification between the parties, including a disputed legal-fee sum already referred to taxation. It did not determine the Nova Travel costs as part of the final fee calculations in this judgment.