When the Judge awards me costs?

C

Club Scrub

Registered User
Messages
24
I recently won a case in the local district court where the judge awarded me my costs which the solicitor agreed at €900 with the judge when making the order.

I assumed that this was the end of it.

Today I received a bill from her for €1300 inc Vat to be paid this week. Is this normal practise? What is the point in being awarded your costs when you a billed anyway for far more than agreed with the judge? Should this invoice have gone to the plaintiffs solicitors?

Has anyone else had this experience?
 
did u get any award in addition to the costs?

Normally the award goes to your solicitor and they take their costs out and pay you the balance.

However as you will be aware some solicitors under the various redress schemes were getting paid by the state and also billing their clients, something which was illegal but it showed that the appetite for seeking double payments is well en-grained in the profession.

The problem here is that she will demand u to pay the 1300 before she pays out any damages.

Did she meet the section 68 requirements before you engaged her
 
No I was just awarded my costs. I had successfully defended a case which was only brought as the other side thought I would cave in on the steps to avoid publicity. It was a completely bogus claim and they tried to use the court system to "lever" me into making some sort of settlement.

When the judge found in my favour he awarded costs against the plaintiff for more or less wasting the courts time. He asked my solicitor how much she was seeking and she said €900 (this was checked against some "scale" by a court attendant who confirmed that it was ok).

I assumed that she would seek payment from the others solicitors etc and that would be the end of it. I certainly didnt expect to be "whacked" with an invoice this morning for €1,300 and don't even know if this is in addition to the €900 from the other side. In any event her bill had grown from €900 in front of the judge to €1,300 by the time it got on paper in the form of an invoice!

I am starting to feel that not all the criminals in court appear in the dock!
 
I know this is a crazy idea, but how about ringing her and asking what the story is?
That you had been awarded costs and why had a bill issued? It might just be an oversight/administrative error in the office.
 
First query your solicitor per the comments below

This was adjucated on by a judge to whom the solicitor confirmed their costs.

They should be bound by that submission IMO as on a relatively small case there should not be "extras" creeping in.

Solicitors time is "measurable" and therefore I see no reason why additional costs should arise.

If the solicitor refuses to engage with you there may be another option.

Refer the matter to the taxing master.

Perhaps others could comment.
 
District Court costs are fixed - they are listed on a scale.

The actual costs of defending an action are likely to exceed the scale costs. Hence the difference. Your solicitor should have explained all of this in an initial Section 68 letter.

You may have been awarded scale costs - you may or may not be able to recover them. If your Plaintiff does not pay you are liable to pay your own solicitor - the action was taken against you and you are responsible to discharge your own solicitor's fees. If the Plaintiff does pay, it is likely that the 900 will be deducted from the total 1300.00

mf
 
mf1 said:
District Court costs are fixed - they are listed on a scale.

The actual costs of defending an action are likely to exceed the scale costs. Hence the difference. Your solicitor should have explained all of this in an initial Section 68 letter.

You may have been awarded scale costs - you may or may not be able to recover them. If your Plaintiff does not pay you are liable to pay your own solicitor - the action was taken against you and you are responsible to discharge your own solicitor's fees. If the Plaintiff does pay, it is likely that the 900 will be deducted from the total 1300.00

mf
Click to expand...

But the solicitor agreed with the judge that she was going to charge €900. If she was going to change €1300 then she should have said so in front of the judge. The judge could then have said only €900 of it would be awarded due to the scale and she could have invoiced for the balance but she didn't.

If she can then send an invoice for more than the agreed fee and expect to get paid then it seems strange to say the least.
 
Some of the difference could be accounted for by VAT - were the measured costs awarded in court inclusive or exclusive of VAT? i.e. you were awarded €900 plus VAT or €900 including VAT?

If there is a difference between the measured costs in court and the solicitors costs, then the solicitor should be able to show that he did additional work above the work done specifically for the court appearance.
 
As OP has gone quiet...........

I checked the scale costs and €952.30 ( excl. outlays and VAT) seems to be the magic figure.

This is the maximum amount, on scale costs, that the Court could order the Plaintiff's to pay the Defendant ( the OP here). Those costs are due by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as an indemnity for the costs that the Defendant owes his own solicitors.

Solicitors are entitled to be paid by their clients. The Defendant is responsible for paying all of his costs to his own solicitor - if he gets money back from the Plaintiff thats a bonus. It reduces the amount he has to pay his own solicitor. It is not the Defendant's solicitor's job to go chasing the costs from the Plaintiff - the OP seems to think that once the Judge made the order against the Plaintiff that that was the end of his involvement with his own solicitor and that paying his own solicitor was nothing to do with him.

All of that should have been explained in a Section 68 letter to the OP at the start.

So, the maximum scale costs for a Dismiss ( i.e. strike out the case) are €952.30 plus outlays of €83.88 plus VAT €213.40 which comes to €1250.00 - more or less. So close enough to the €1300.00 mentioned by the OP.

mf
 
Club Scrub said:
I assumed that she would seek payment from the others solicitors etc and that would be the end of it. I certainly didnt expect to be "whacked" with an invoice this morning
Click to expand...


When you first visited your solicitor to discuss this case did you not ask how much will it cost to go to court? You surely must have discussed how much your solicitor would cost you.

Another question did you solicitor issue you with a Section 68 letter.
 
mf1 said:
All of that should have been explained in a Section 68 letter to the OP at the start.
Click to expand...

Any chance you could post up one of these elusive Section 68 letters, maybe on the legal thread. I've never seen one and it seems neither has many people so it would be interesting to know what they look like.
 
Bronte- every firm has it's own s.68 templates and each individual file has to have a s.68 specifically for it. But there is no great mystery- for example a conveyancing file might have a s.68 which will set out the fee, the outlay and VAT- it will probably state something like this is the anticipated, quoted fee, but should there be additional work there could be additional fees/outlays and these will be advised to you as soon as possible.

It is possible for a solicitor to word a s.68 so vaguely that a client has no idea of what the eventual fee will be- in my opinion this is a bad idea and very poor client relations will inevitably ensue. I think it is best to be as clear as possible about what the fee will be. So we charge a flat fee in relation to conveyancing and probate and I could honestly say that that fee estimated is the fee charged in 99% of cases- sometimes additional work is required and we don't charge but in unusual cases a huge amount of additional work means an extra fee.

Litigation is much more difficult to assess at the outset as it is so variable. Any given circuit court case could mean one day in court or 10 days in court. That's a huge difference in work, barristers fees etc. There could be the standard set of documents or huge additional work in motions/discovery etc. In litigation the client should be informed on an ongoing basis of fees mounting or should, in so far as is possible, be given an idea of how additional work will cost extra and how that is charged out. Some solicitors charge per hour, some will charge per phone call, per letter read, per letter sent, per consultation, per court attendance etc.
 
Vanilla said:
Bronte- every firm has it's own s.68 templates and each individual file has to have a s.68 specifically for it. But there is no great mystery-
Click to expand...

Vanilla you are not trying to be funny but I find your post funny because in the world you and MF1 live in yes your files have the 'very elusive' S68 letters but clients rarely seem to ask how much is this going to cost me never mind get a S68 letter. Something is failing in the system of clients getting an idea of costs. That would be a failing in the legal profession (some of the legal profession) and of their professional body. Maybe clients don't seem to realise they have been given the S68 letter or maybe, just maybe they have not.
 
It would be useful standard format wording of a competent and clear S 68 Letter - a specimen letter should have all the basic matters set out, regardless of tailoring to specific needs.

Herewith an article on the judgement of Peart J. in relation to the likely effect of the lack of a Section 68 Letter on the ability of solicitors to recover fees.

See also P. 5 of this Volume 16 Nos 1 and 2 of the FLAC News

Herewith also another booklet that some may find useful

[broken link removed]

THE ROLE OF THE TAXING MASTERS
OF THE
SUPREME AND HIGH COURTS
 
Bronte

Funnily enough, costs are usually the very first thing that a client asks about. But mostly, they're not actually listening when they are being discussed because they usually have a game plan as in:

In conveyancing, it's all about the cheapest.
In Probate, it's all about doing it yourself.
In litigation, it's all about - the other person is at fault so they should pay everything and it should cost me nothing.
In family law, it's all about being wronged and the other person is entirely to blame.
Occasionally, it's about a novel (not), special (not), unusual(not) case that a client wants you to take on on a pro bono basis.

A lot of clients ( and I accept that this is incredible), simply have no concept, and even less interest, in paying a solicitor for their services. It's as if there is some magic treasure chest somewhere out of which fees are paid. Or that we are a service paid for by the State.

Finally, you have to remember that lawyers are all the same, always covering their own backs ( I never understood why I should expose myself to a negligence action from a client!), made a fortune during the boom time and should now work for free.

Can you see a trend? Is there not a sameness with many of the posters? It is all about deflecting responsibility and liability - with the matter and with the costs. I call it the "it wasn't me, the man made me do it" syndrome.

I cannot say what other firms do. I can tell you though that, when I do have disputes with clients about fees, there will usually be a blanket denial that costs were ever discussed, followed by an attempt to negotiate down once the signed (by the client) letter is produced.

If we work only on the basis of the posters that post here, it seems to me that many of them are first timers or infrequent posters, appear to be quite naive and generally do not post the full story straight off - so you're left trying to speculate.

I accept that there are bad apples in every profession. I fully accept that double charging is wrong. But I equally have an issue with the cases we mostly hear about where that happened - the Army Deafness cases being an example. Which came first? The ambulance chasing solicitor or the "I didn't know 'til you told me that I was "deaf Plaintiff.

mf
 
With the clients you have MF1 I don't know how you stay in business. :)

But as ever your posts entertain on a a cold, damp,dull, slow Monday.
 
Bronte said:
With the clients you have MF1 I don't know how you stay in business. :)
Click to expand...

I am, of course, referring to those people who never made it with me as clients or were elevated, shortly after I was engaged, to the status of "former" client!

mf
 
Well done MF1. Good Post. It's always comforting to note that there are a significant number of Professionals out there with Principles who have been tainted (unfairly) by the actions of the few!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top