Doyle v Buckley [Practising Under the Style and Title of J. Buckley & Company Solicitors]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley
• Judgment Date: 14 January 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 27
• Docket Number: Record No. 2011/6056P

Between/

Denis Doyle

Plaintiff

and

Joe Buckley (Practising under the Style and Title of J. Buckley & Company Solicitors)

Defendant

[2026] IEHC 27

Record No. 2011/6056P

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

Taxation – Payment – Affidavit of means – Plaintiff seeking an order directing payment – Whether the defendant should furnish an affidavit of means

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Doyle, sought the following reliefs by way of notice of motion dated 22 November 2024: (1) an order directing the payment out of the sum of €45,146.69 (lodged into court by the defendant, Mr Buckley, on foot of the order of the High Court dated 29 July 2011) together with any accrued interest thereon, to the plaintiff; (2) further or in the alternative, an order pursuant to Order 99, rules 2(5) and/or 7(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 and/or on foot of Practice Direction HC125 directing that the defendant pay such monies to the plaintiff on account as the court deems appropriate; (3) an order directing the case management of the proceedings with such directions as the court deems meet; (4) further or in the alternative, an order directing that the defendant furnish an Affidavit of Means of his assets and liabilities within such time period as may be ordered by the court; (5) further or in the alternative, an order directing the defendant to take such steps as may be necessary to complete the finalisation of the Taxation of the Bills of Costs or to take up a Certificate of Taxation within such time frame directed by the court. The plaintiff submitted that, save for the payment of €25,000 on foot of an order of Binchy J (in December 2018), no monies had been recovered and the plaintiff was concerned that the defendant would not have sufficient assets to meet the plaintiff’s claims in the underlying proceedings in the event that he was successful.

Held by Bradley J that, having had regard to Fitzpatrick v Behan [2021] IECA 23 and AX v BX [2023] IECA 109 and considered the matters which Order 99, rules 2(5) and 7(1) and Practice Direction HC125 sought to address, this was an appropriate case to direct the payment out of the sum of €45,146.69 together with any accrued interest thereon, to the plaintiff, on account and in relation to the costs which he had incurred, subject to the plaintiff’s solicitor undertaking that in the event of an adjudication realising a smaller sum than that directed to be paid on account, such overpayment, if any, will be repaid forthwith. On the basis of such an undertaking, Bradley J proposed making an order and directing that such payment be made within three weeks of the perfection of the order. Having had regard to the terms of the High Court order dated 18 July 2011 and to the efflux of time and developments since 18 July 2011, Bradley J considered that it was appropriate that he order that the defendant furnish an Affidavit of Means of his assets and liabilities within three weeks of the perfection of the order arising out of the judgment.

Bradley J held that, in relation to the other matters raised on behalf of the plaintiff in the application, it appeared that save for the question of the costs of the application and the vouching of matters in relation to the agricultural expert, the taxation of costs process was effectively at an end subject to the issuing of a Certificate of Taxation.

Application granted in part.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on the 14 ^th day of January 2026

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary

1 The context to this application has a protracted and complex litigation history. That history has resulted in a number of judgments and orders of the Superior Courts and rulings of the (then) Taxing Master.

2 The orders and judgments include: orders of the High Court (Murphy J.) on 18 ^th July 2011 and 29 ^th July 2011; Doyle v. Buckley p/a Buckley & Co Solicitors [2013] IEHC 292 (Charleton J.); an order of Kearns P. dated in Doyle v. Buckley (1 ^st July 2015); Buckley v. O'Neill (Taxing Master) and Doyle (party interested) [2018] IEHC 717; Buckley v. O'Neill (Taxing Master) and Doyle (party interested) [2023] IECA 288 (Maurice Collins, Haughton and Pilkington JJ, judgment of the court delivered by Collins J.). Here the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court (Binchy J.) refusing Mr. Buckley's application for a review of a taxation conducted by Taxing Master O'Neill relating to work undertaken by the Defendant as solicitor on behalf of the Plaintiff.

3 Briefly, in the underlying proceedings commenced on 5 ^th July 2011, the Plaintiff inter alia seeks a full account of the deposit of €600,000 paid to the Defendant, as the Plaintiff's solicitor, by a company called Sandystream Limited (“Sandystream”) for the failed purchase of a property, when Sandystream went into liquidation, together with claims for damages for alleged breach of confidence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary relationship, breach of trust, misrepresentation conversion and detinue. The forfeited deposit was not paid over to the Plaintiff. The Defendant applied most of it (less €35,000 which the parties agreed was to be paid to the liquidator of Sandystream) in the discharge of fees which he alleges were due to him by the Plaintiff. Of the remaining €565,000, therefore, €45,146.99 is the sum which remained in the client account.

4 By order of the High Court dated 29 ^th July 2011, the Defendant undertook to lodge into court this sum of €45,146.99 and gave various other undertakings in or around that time in relation to his assets and confirmed that if, at the end of the taxation process, it transpired that he owed a sum of money to the Plaintiff, that he would immediately pay such sum to the Plaintiff.

5 In the underlying proceedings, the Plaintiff alleges that the deposit sum was his lawful property and that he did not authorise or consent to the Defendant using same. The Defendant has delivered a full Defence and counterclaimed for the sum of €720,618 in respect of the alleged completion of professional work.

Background

6 In Doyle v. Buckley [2013] IEHC 292, the High Court (Charleton J.) acceded to the Plaintiff's application and referred the Defendant's Bill of Costs in Bills D215 and D226 to taxation by the Taxing Master and made other ancillary and consequential orders.

7 The taxation process became very protracted but the Taxing Master delivered his final ruling on 22 ^nd May 2015 which resulted in a substantial reduction in the sum of €752,726 to the Defendant's Bill of Costs. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant now owes him significant sums of money.

8 On 20 ^th April 2016, the High Court (Twomey J.) refused an application brought by way of judicial review by the Defendant of the decision of the Taxing Master. On 13 ^th October 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from this decision.

9 On 9 ^th November 2018, in Buckley v. O'Neill (Taxing Master) and Doyle (party interested) [2018] IEHC 717, the High Court (Binchy J.) refused the Defendant's review of the Taxing Master's decision on a number of Bills of Costs (except for the payment to an agricultural expert) and on 5 ^th December 2018, Binchy J. ordered that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff the costs of the taxation review, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement and further ordered the sum of €25,000 be paid on account of such costs (which sum of €25,000 has been paid).

10 On 24 ^th November 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the High Court (Binchy J.) in Buckley v. O'Neill (Taxing Master) and Doyle (party interested) [2023] IECA 288.

11 Arising from the number of unsuccessful applications and appeals brought by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has obtained the followings costs orders against the Defendant: costs of the interlocutory application on 29 ^th July 2011; costs of the motion to refer to taxation dated 12 ^th April 2013; costs of the Defendant's first challenge to taxation of costs on 1 ^st July 2015; costs of the unsuccessful judicial review brought by the Defendant on 25 ^th July 2016; costs of the Court of Appeal hearing on the judicial review case dated 8 ^th March 2018; the balance of the costs of the hearing before the High Court (Binchy J.) dated 5 ^th December 2018 after the deduction of €25,000 paid on account by the Defendant; and the costs of the hearing before the Court of Appeal in 2021. These sums are the subject of separate summary proceedings issued by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on 30 ^th September 2019 under Record Number 2019/974S. In the application before me, the Plaintiff did not pursue his initial application to consolidate these summary proceedings with this underlying action.

APPLICATION DATED 22nd NOVEMBER 2024

12 The Plaintiff submits that, save for the payment of the €25,000 on foot of the order of Binchy J. (in December 2018), no monies have been recovered and the Plaintiff is concerned that the Defendant, who is now retired as a solicitor, will not have sufficient assets to meet the Plaintiff's claims in the underlying proceedings in the event that he is successful.

13 Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs by way of Notice of Motion dated 22 ^nd November 2024:

• (1) An order directing the payment out of the sum of €45,146.69 (lodged into court by the Defendant on foot of the order of the High Court dated 29 ^th July 2011) together with any accrued interest thereon, to the Plaintiff.

• (2) Further or in the alternative, an order pursuant to Order 99, rules 2(5) and or 7(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended (“the RSC 1986”) and/or on foot of Practice Direction HC125 directing that the Defendant pay such monies to the Plaintiff on account as the court deems appropriate.

• (3) An order directing the case management of these proceedings with such directions as this court deems meet.

• (4) Further or in the alternative, an order directing that the Defendant...