Former public relations consultant Monica Leech has lost her High Court challenge over rulings allowing a €165,000 instruction fee and certain other costs to a law firm which represented her in a defamation case over articles in the Evening Herald 15 years ago.
A High Court jury had in 2009 awarded Ms Leech €1.87m damages plus costs over the articles but, in 2015, the Supreme Court reduced the award on appeal to €1.25m, plus costs.
Ms Leech had instructed solicitors McCann Fitzgerald (MCF) in late 2004 to represent her in defamation proceedings over the Evening Herald articles and also in defamation actions against other titles in the Independent Newspapers Group.
After the MCF retainer was terminated in August 2011, Ms Leech later instructed a Co Waterford based firm, Kenny Stephenson Chapman.
Issues concerning exactly what costs are to be paid to Ms Leech by Independent Newspapers arising from the €1.25m award have been parked pending the outcome of the taxation of the solicitor/client costs.
Ms Leech had represented herself in proceedings before a High Court Taxing Master concerning the fees and costs claimed by McCann Fitzgerald under its seven year retainer. There was no dispute the firm had done the work claimed for.
Represented by William Fitzgerald, instructed by Kenny Stephenson Chapman, Ms Leech later sought a High Court review of the Taxing Master’s rulings. MCF, represented by Alan Keating BL, opposed her proceedings
In his reserved judgment on Friday, Mr Anthony Justice Barr held there was no basis to set aside the Taxing Master’s decisions.
He said Ms Leech had sought to raise new grounds of objection in this High Court review concerning how the Taxing Master had quantified the instructions fee when the law clearly stated “that cannot be done”.
Even if he was wrong on that, he was satisfied there was “no actual substance” in the quantification point.
The Taxing Master calculated the total solicitor’s professional fees at €238,813, not a €253,755 sum claimed as due on a time assessment basis, he noted.
The solicitor had voluntarily applied a 30 per cent reduction to the fee claimed to allow for overlapping work on the other defamation cases. The Taxing Master also applied that 30 per cent cut to conclude the net claimable instructions fee was €173,178 and applied further reductions to bring the total to €165,000.
Ms Leech argued the Taxing Master made errors, including taking €253,755 as the “headline figure” when quantifying. She argued the proper net instructions fee was €154,584.
Mr Justice Barr said any error the Taxing Master may have made in the headline figure used under the time billing section was “not that significant” as it was but the starting point for caculation of the fees on a time basis.
It cannot be said there was definitely an error by the Taxing Master which led to an overstatment of the figure ultimately allowed for as the instructions fee, he said.
In other findings, he was satisfied a fee estimate issued by the solicitor before the hearing of the defamation case was not binding on the solicitor concerning the fees that may ultimately be charged.
The fact there may have been a discrepancy between the estimate and the fees ultimately charged does not necessarily mean the solicitor imposed a “success type fee arrangement” on Ms Leech, he said.
He further held the Taxing Master had not erred in allowing fees to MCF in respect of a mediation and dismissed an objection concerning alleged absence of the original solicitor file at taxation. He also rejected complaints about the Taxing Master allowing €2,000 for postage, phone calls and sundry outlays and €4,230 for photocopying.
