IELCA 11 - Griffin -v- Collins & Ors Practising Under Title of Margetson & Greene Solrs.

• Year: 2018
• Decision Date: 03 October 2018

1

[2018] IELCA 11

THE HIGH COURT

2012 No 6715P

BETWEEN

PERCIVAL GRIFFIN AND JOYCE GRIFFIN

PLAINTIFFS

AND

RORY W COLLINS, CIARAN S KIRWAN, AND LOUISE P MCGOVERN,

PRACTICISING UNDER THE STYLE AND TITLE OF MARGETSON & GREENE SOLICITORS

DEFENDANTS

RULING ON TAXATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ COSTS

Introduction.

1. The Plaintiff issued a Notice for Taxation on 20th December, 2017 returnable for 9th March,

2018. The matter was adjourned from time to time to facilitate the parties, who were

engaged in settlement discussions in respect of the Bill of Costs. Ultimately, the parties

informed me that they had resolved all matters contained within the Bill of Costs, save in

respect of two items. These were the fees of Deloitte (claimed in various sums) amounting

to €61,591.27 at items 202 and 203 of the Bill of Costs and the fees of Rory O’Ferrall,

Chartered Accountant in the sum of €30,687.00 claimed at item 204 of the Bill of Costs.

These were duly scheduled for Taxation and ultimately heard on 24th and 25th July, 2018.

2. On those and other Taxation dates, the Plaintiffs were represented by Mr Darragh O’Sullivan

of Lowes, Legal Costs Accountants. The Defendants were represented by Mr Seamus Sadlier

of McCann Sadlier, Legal Costs Accountants. Mr Rory O’Ferrall gave evidence on his own

behalf and Mr Barry Robinson gave evidence on behalf of Deloitte, in order to assist me in

the determination of the two disputed items.

3. Because the Taxation of costs is limited to two items, it is necessary to set out some broad

introductory comments by way of background. For greater particularity, the detailed Bill of

Costs, submitted by the Plaintiffs and the books of Pleadings, Expert Reports and the Precis

of Evidence give a more detailed explanation of the matters in issue. All of these were gone

through in considerable detail during the Taxation.

2

4. The genesis of these proceedings, arise from the purchase by the two Plaintiffs of a Nursing

Home, known as Donore Nursing Home, Sidmonton Road, Bray Co Wicklow in or about March

of 1991.

5. The Plaintiffs were advised in that transaction by an Architect Michael Carroll, who had been

retained to advise and to inspect the Nursing Home, as to its compliance with all relevant

planning issues and a pre-purchase inspection.

6. The Plaintiffs were also advised by Carroll and Associates, Auditors and Accountants to

advise in relation to the financial issues, with particular emphasis on the level of income that

the Plaintiffs could reasonably have expected to derive from the Nursing Home and also to

prepare financial projections of income that could reasonably be generated by the Nursing

Home and to advise on the sufficiency of the income generated. Carroll & Associates, were

the nominee of the lender to the purchasers, Hill Samuel (later taken over by Anglo Irish

Bank) and they also prepared financial projections.

7. The Nursing Home venture, turned out to be a financial disaster. The Plaintiffs suffered great

financial hardship, they fell into arrears with their loan covenant, they had to negotiate with

the Revenue Commissioners and Trade Creditors and the Plaintiffs were generally in a very

difficult financial position from the early stages of the venture.

8. The Plaintiffs in the within proceedings, consulted and instructed the Defendants in the

present proceedings, as their solicitors, to initiate proceedings against the Vendor, the

Architect and the Accountants for, inter alia, negligence and misrepresentation. High Court

proceedings were initiated in 1994.

9. The Defendants in the within proceedings, allowed the Plaintiffs’ action to be struck out, on

11th March, 2008, in respect of the Vendor and the Architect and on the 23rd June, 2008 as

against the Accountants. Thus, the Plaintiffs lost their right of action, as against those

Defendants described above. As a consequence, the within proceedings were brought

claiming a total sum of €914,262 representing the loss of opportunity to recover damages

from those parties identified, seeking Orders to be indemnified in respect of the legal costs

that were ordered to be paid by the Plaintiffs, arising from the strike out of their proceedings

and the sum of €50,000/€60,000 plus Vat in respect of the Plaintiffs’ own costs incurred in

Defending those dismissed proceedings.

10. For ease of procedures, I propose to refer to the proceedings that were struck out, as the

1994 proceedings and the present proceedings as the negligence proceedings.

H J Ward

11. The Plaintiffs retained H J Ward & Co, as their solicitors to initiate the negligence

proceedings. H J Ward were consulted in November 2009. The following is a brief outline of

the progression of the negligence proceedings, as taken from the Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs. A

Plenary Summons was issued on July 9th 2012 and the Statement of Claim was served on

June 19th 2012. Particulars were raised on December 19th 2012, a detailed Notice to Produce

Documents was served on 20th December, 2012. Replies to Particulars were delivered on

10th May, 2013. A full Defence was delivered on 5th November, 2013, a Reply to Defence