A legal bill of €33,000 originating from an €8,000 slip and fall compensation was deemed “unrealistic” by High Court Judge, Mr Justice Anthony Barr. He pointed out that the claimed legal expenses should not be disproportionate to the amount of award won in the case.
The case was brought to the Circuit Court when it would have been more expedient and cost-effective in the District Court, the judge noted. The District Court has the capability of granting awards up to €15,000 whereas the Circuit Court’s limit is €30,000.
Mr Justice Barr criticised the decision to use a higher court than necessary and then demanding a legal fee four times higher than the damages approved, calling it “unrealistic”. He asserted that reality needs to be factored into the equation, and dismissed the argument that District Court level fees were illegal.
Kevin Nolan was awarded €8,000 in a personal injury case in the Circuit Court, against KC Cable Vision Limited, Virgin Media Limited, and a county council, all of whom denied culpability. Mr Nolan alleged that he tripped and suffered a soft tissue injury to his right ankle due to a faulty footpath in Dungarvan, Co Waterford on April 3rd, 2018.
The Circuit Court ruled in favour of Mr Nolan against the cable and media companies, and his legal costs were covered by them, albeit at the lower District Court level. Mr Nolan’s solicitors delivered a bill of €32,986 to these companies, out of which the solicitor’s fee was €19,414 excluding additional payments and VAT. The barrister’s fee was €2,350 excluding VAT, according to Mr Justice Barr.
The county registrar reduced the solicitor’s fee to €2,250 and the barrister’s fee to €800, both plus VAT and outlay. Subsequently, Mr Nolan lodged a High Court case contending that the District Court Rules Committee and the county registrar violated a section of the 1981 Courts Act that allegedly outlaws the setting of scale fees by any court rules.
According to Mr Justice Barr, the District Court Rules, established by the District Court’s Rules Committee, indicate that in cases where reparations amounting between €6,000 to €9,000 are recouped, the solicitor’s fees are set at €2,250. An amount of €800 is assigned for a barrister’s fees for awards that fall within the €7,000 to €9,000 bracket. He added that in 2023 these amounts were raised by €475 and €40 respectively.
The judge ruled that under section 17(4) of the 1981 Act, the committee that formulates the rules has the authority to determine a scale for fees that can be reclaimed for cases heard within the District Court.
The judge deemed setting fees within the District Court as being “absolutely logical” to prevent the discrepancy of different costs being sanctioned by different judges. This tactic provides individuals with an understanding of potential legal expenses they might face if they lose a civil case in the District Court.
Upon reviewing Section 17, it is evident to the judge that it is purposed for ensuring that the only legal costs that can be reclaimed are those which would have been applicable in the court with the least amount of jurisdiction required to hear a specific claim.
He further expressed that the District Court is intended for hearing cases requiring “minimal formality” as a means to provide a “swift and economical way of resolving relatively minor disputes.”