THE High Court yesterday allowed a senior counsel his brief fee of 30,000 guineas and refresher fees of 3,000 guineas a day relating to a planning appeal to An Bord Pleanala over the Loop Head mast.
The Commissioners of Irish Lights were disputing costs incurred by Maxwell, Weldon and Darley, solicitors, Baggot Street, Dublin, in relation to the preparation and prosecution of a planning appeal to An Bord Pleanala.
The appeal arose out of a refusal by Clare County Council to grant permission to the Commissioners for the construction of the mast at Loop Head.
Mr Justice Barron said there were only two items in dispute. First, the brief fee and secondly the refresher fees allowed to counsel. Only one senior counsel, Mr Paul Sreenan, was briefed by the solicitors to appear at an oral hearing of the appeal, which was heard in Ennis over a period of nine days from June 28th to July 13th, 1994.
In February 1994, the Commissioners sought from the solicitors a rough estimate of counsel's fees. Counsel indicated that his brief fee would be a minimum of 30,000 guineas and refresher fees 3,000 guineas a day.
The Commissioners and the Department of the Marine for whom they were acting felt that the fees appeared to be excessive.
A bill of costs was drawn and taxed. A letter was sent by the solicitor to the Commissioners setting out the difficulties faced by counsel and the complexity of work.
Mr Justice Barron said the fact that counsel had to commit himself to a date and to give exclusive attention to the case would be a factor to be taken into account since this in turn might be expected to require him to refuse or to return work. But the work actually lost must be disregarded.
Counsel's brief fee and refresher fees were allowed in full by the Taxing Master. Objections were brought on behalf of the Commissioners to all the fees.
The judge said the level of fees marked by counsel depended upon the nature of the case, its complexities and the importance of the case to the parties. It was dear that the ability to erect the particular mast and other similar masts was a matter of considerable public importance.
The case was clearly very complex and of extreme importance to the client. While the fee taken as an amount was very large, it was not so large in comparison to other fees agreed or determined on taxation as to be excessive on that ground alone.
Having regard to the reasons furnished in support of the fees and, in particular, to the view of the instructing solicitor as to its complexity and importance, it would not be unreasonable for a reasonably prudent solicitor to have agreed this fee.
The judge said he would allow the fees.