IELCA 8 - Esate Dahesch -v- Jamshid Kamvar & Pars Oriental Carpet Gallery Ltd

• Year: 2012
• Decision Date: 12 July 2012

THE HIGH COURT [2012] IELCA 8

2010 N0. 5955 P

BETWEEN

ESATE DAHESCH PLAINTIFF

AND

JAMSHID KAMVAR AND PARS ORIENTAL CARPET GALLERY LIMITED

DEFENDANTS

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS.

The Plaintiff’s bill of costs, pursuant to Order dated 28 July 2011 initially came before me for

taxation on 8 February 2012 when the bill was duly taxed. The Plaintiff, being dissatisfied with

some of the disallowances in relation to the fees of Counsel and the instructions fee, carried in

objections dated 13 March 2012 which were followed by written submissions of 15 March 2012.

The Defendants’ solicitors filed replying submissions dated 15 May 2012. The objections duly

came on for hearing on 14 June 2012 when same were completed and I reserved my ruling

thereon. At all times the Plaintiff was represented by Ms. Lavin, Legal Costs Accountant

instructed by H.J. Ward & Company Solicitors and the Defendants being represented by Mr.

Murphy, Legal Costs Accountant instructed by Carney McCarthy Solicitors.

The costs relate to the Defendants’ application to the Court, pursuant to the provisions of Order

29 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts for an Order directing, inter alia, that the Plaintiff

should furnish security for the costs of the Defendant herein. On the day on which the

application was heard and determined by the Court, namely 28 July 2011, the Court also heard

and determined the Plaintiff’s Motion seeking judgement in default of defence whereby the

Defendants were granted a further period of one week within which to deliver their defences.

The bill of costs which was taxed also contained the costs of this latter motion but no issue

arises thereon. It is common case that the solicitor’s attendance at Court related to both

applications.

By Plenary Summons dated 22 June 2010 the Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief against the

Defendants to the effect that all shares held by the first named Defendant in the second named

Defendant are held in trust for the Plaintiff, damages for breach of contract and accounts and

enquiries in regard to sums received by the Defendants which it is alleged constitute the rightful

property of the Plaintiff. The basis of the claim is set forth in the Statement of Claim, the

Plaintiff being a businessman residing in Stuttgart, Germany and it is claimed had ventured into

a business arrangement, initially with his nephew in 1989 which involved importing and retailing

oriental carpets from a premises at no. 19 Dame Street, Dublin. Trade was conducted under

the style & title of Pars Oriental Carpet Gallery. The essence of the claim appears to be that the

Plaintiff having dismissed his nephew in or about 1992 and having appointed the first named

Defendant as Branch Manager at the premises, was effectively defrauded of the profits which

should have accrued to his business. It being alleged that the first named Defendant and the

Plaintiff’s nephew Mr. Abba Sadri were equal shareholders in the second named Defendant

company, which company had been incorporated without the knowledge of the Plaintiff and