Buckner v Project Design and Building Consultants Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 06 June 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 404
• Docket Number: 2014 No. 2835 P
• Court: High Court
• Date: 06 June 2019

[2019] IEHC 404

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2014 No. 2835 P

Between:

JOHN BUCKNER

AND

CARMEL KENNEALLY

PLAINTIFF

– AND –

PROJECT DESIGN AND BUILDING CONSULTANTS LIMITED

DEFENDANT

Solicitor’s lien – Case files – Order compelling release – Plaintiffs seeking order compelling release of case files – Whether the plaintiffs would first have to pay the fees outstanding for the work that their former solicitor had completed for them if they wished for their case files from him

Facts: Mr Battles, a solicitor, acted for the plaintiffs, Mr Buckner and Ms Kenneally, in determined proceedings. Despite his successful progression of the proceedings, the plaintiffs were not satisfied with how Mr Battles discharged his overall professional duties towards them. They instructed a new firm of solicitors, which intimated to Mr Battles by letter of 13 July 2017 that his retainer had been determined; Ms Kenneally had likewise sworn that she and Mr Buckner had determined Mr Battles’ retainer. The plaintiffs appeared to be teetering on suing Mr Battles in negligence. To this end, they sought their case files of Mr Battles. He claimed a solicitor’s lien over those files, i.e. they would be released on payment of outstanding fees. The plaintiffs came to the High Court seeking, inter alia, an order compelling release of the files. The plaintiffs, in making the application, sought to rely on Mulheir v Gannon [2009] 3 IR 433 and Reilly and anor v O’Ceallaigh and ors [2013] IEHC 565.

Held by Barrett J that this reliance was misplaced as those cases were concerned with the release of papers in ongoing proceedings while this was a case where a release of files was sought post-proceedings by clients who had not paid fees owing to their former solicitor in order that their present solicitor could see whether they had a well-founded case in negligence against that former solicitor. Barrett J held that, save where negligence was patent or established, for the court to make such an order would make nonsense of the concept of a solicitor’s lien (which, short of litigation, is the last refuge of a solicitor whose client fees have gone unpaid). Barrett J held that it would also run contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fallon v Gerard M Gannon, practicing as J Delaney Gannon & Co., Solicitors, [1988] ILRM 193. Barrett J held that the plaintiffs may consider that they have a case in negligence against Mr Battles but if they wished for their case files from him they would first have to pay the fees outstanding for the work that he had completed for them.

Barrett J held that the court would decline to direct the release of the case files.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 6th June, 2019.

1 Mr Battles, a solicitor, acted for the...