# When the Judge awards me costs?



## Club Scrub (11 Oct 2011)

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?


----------



## hastalavista (11 Oct 2011)

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


----------



## Club Scrub (11 Oct 2011)

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!


----------



## dereko1969 (11 Oct 2011)

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.


----------



## onq (11 Oct 2011)

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.


----------



## T McGibney (11 Oct 2011)

onq said:


> Refer the matter to the taxing master.



I don't think the taxing master process is suitable for amounts of a few hundred euro.


----------



## mf1 (11 Oct 2011)

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


----------



## Purple (11 Oct 2011)

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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## csirl (12 Oct 2011)

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.


----------



## mf1 (12 Oct 2011)

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


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2011)

Thanks for the explanation mf1. It makes sense.


----------



## Bronte (14 Oct 2011)

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


 

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.


----------



## Bronte (14 Oct 2011)

mf1 said:


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


 
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.


----------



## Vanilla (14 Oct 2011)

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.


----------



## Bronte (17 Oct 2011)

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-


 
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.


----------



## onq (17 Oct 2011)

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_


----------



## mf1 (17 Oct 2011)

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


----------



## Bronte (17 Oct 2011)

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.


----------



## mf1 (17 Oct 2011)

Bronte said:


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



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


----------



## 44brendan (17 Oct 2011)

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!


----------



## onq (17 Oct 2011)

(Applause)

Thanks for brightening up my Monday mf1.

So how about a specimen S. 68 ehhh?.

Then when your clients ask, you can point to AAM and say that - in addition to the letter they client signed off - you posted a S 68 specimen here for all to see


----------



## mf1 (17 Oct 2011)

Only because you asked nicely! 

This is a sample of a S. 68 letter in a matrimonial case. But you'll get the drift. 

Because it is rather tedious, clients tend not to read it which is why they have to sign a copy of it. 

Finally, in any case we deal with, a great deal depends on the clients, the colleagues and the facts. A difficult client coupled with a difficult colleague is a nightmare scenario.

mf




"The Solicitors Amendment Act of 1994 obliges us to provide you with details in writing of the basis upon which you will be charged for our services. 

It may or may not happen, but if all goes smoothly, and a Separation Agreement can be swiftly negotiated, your fee will be in the region of €XX.00  plus VAT @ 21%. There will be a further fee payable if any conveyancing or additional work requires to be done to implement a settlement. We think that it is likely that we will bring ZZZZZZZZZZZZ, barrister, in for any negotiations and her fees will be c. €XXX. 00 plus VAT. If we need to institute Court proceedings to implement any aspect of an agreement, there will be a further fee of c. €XXXX.00 plus VAT. If we run into difficulties or delays on the way, then it really pushes up the costs.   

If the case goes to Court for a full hearing we are advising you that we estimate that fees, outlays and Counsels fees will amount to €XXX.00 inclusive of Counsels fees and VAT. These are the minimum figures that the case will cost you. This figure assumes your complete co-operation and that of your husband/wife and a smooth passage of the matter through the court lists and one half days hearing in the Circuit Court. It does not include an estimate of any sums that you may be ordered to pay by way of costs to your husband/wife - see later. In the event of the matter escalating ( i.e. any interim orders)  or being appealed to the High Court our fees will be increased and we will advise you of same as the matter progresses. 

We suspect that the case will settle at some interim stage and we think that your fees should come in at around €XX.00 inclusive of Counsels fees and VAT but only time will tell.  

When the Separation Agreement or proceedings are finally concluded, you will be furnished with a detailed bill setting out details of the legal services provided to you, the outcome of the proceedings with a copy of any Court order, and details of any property transfer orders or sums of money that have been paid by your spouse or have to be paid by you in discharge of any such order.

The bill of costs will clearly distinguish between the fee charged, V.A.T. @21% payable on same, any outlays (including your barristers fee) and any other disbursements or expenses incurred by this Company on your behalf in connection with the action. 


As discussed earlier, you will be responsible for discharging these costs and it is very important that you, at this stage, recognise just how expensive court proceedings can be. 

The Solicitors Amendment Act of 1994 further obliges us to explain to you what can happen as regards Court Orders for costs. If this matter goes for full hearing, it is likely that the Court will make an order requiring you to pay your own costs. It may in addition ( but this is highly unlikely) order you to pay a proportion, if not all, of your husband's/wife’s  costs. Those costs are called Party and Party costs. They are drawn according to agreed terms and are figures that the County Registrar or Taxing Master would allow if the costs were to be adjudicated on. If it is not possible to agree costs, which we would estimate, for full settlement, at anything up to €XXXXX.00 we must advise you to proceed to taxation and, unfortunately, any expenses (up to €XX.00) incurred in doing that must also be borne by you. 

Party and Party costs do not cover all the costs associated with an action and all other costs are called Solicitor/Client costs. Any costs charged by us will be fully explained to you and, if you feel that they are excessive, then you are entitled to call for those fees to be taxed before the County Registrar. 

We appreciate that on receipt of this letter you may wish to call us to seek further clarification and we will be pleased to discuss any aspect of the letter with you. We would remind you that this is a standard letter that we are obliged by Law to issue to all our clients and you will appreciate that it does help to alleviate any problems that may arise in the future about the terms of our engagement."


----------



## Bronte (17 Oct 2011)

What a marvellous letter.  Can't believe clients do not read every bit of it.  Love the low fee at the beginning if clients are sensible and agree to settle before slowly and inexorably rising to the High Court costs while frittering away the family assets. 

Love all the warnings you give the clients, with the ever mounting costs as you slowly wind your way through the letter.  

And it really makes you wonder how a client having read that doesn't settle there and then.  Also like the way you clearly specify VAT and outlay which causes no end of confusion for people. As is the case with OP no doubt.  

Just curious, what percentage of your clients who read the dire warnings very clearly set out in your letter agree/settle there and then?  And the other percentage are quite mad (crazy).  But they're the one's for whom you're in business as without them there would be no business.  

That letter is not a bit tedious, quite fascinating really.


----------



## bullworth (17 Oct 2011)

The letter is quite interesting. Immediately I saw that I would be worrying about maximum costs. Is  a maximum amount as vague to calculate ? Do unexpected large increases in costs come with   a warning beforehand ? It looks a little bit like making a deal with the devil


----------



## mf1 (17 Oct 2011)

"It looks a little bit like making a deal with the devil "

In this particular scenario,  that happened when you married your spouse! 

mf


----------



## Purple (17 Oct 2011)

mf1 said:


> "It looks a little bit like making a deal with the devil "
> 
> In this particular scenario,  that happened when you married your spouse!
> 
> mf




I didn't know you'd met my wife.


----------



## Sunny (17 Oct 2011)

It really is a mad system. Its not solictors fault but it is amazing how I could be an abused wife looking for a divorce from a husband who doesn't want to co-operate in any shape or form or is determined to make life difficult and so I end up with choosing between a large legal bill that I probably can't afford or staying married to this person.


----------



## onq (17 Oct 2011)

Thanks mf1.

As you can see, its earned you kudos already for lifting veil on this matter.



I think my own profession would benefit hugely from issuing such letters because its seems that many laypeople don't understand the nature of professional fees or where they arise.


----------



## Bronte (18 Oct 2011)

Sunny said:


> It really is a mad system. Its not solictors fault but it is amazing how I could be an abused wife looking for a divorce from a husband who doesn't want to co-operate in any shape or form or is determined to make life difficult and so I end up with choosing between a large legal bill that I probably can't afford or staying married to this person.


 
It's not as black and white as that.  You could stay married but move out.  

The system is adversarial, maybe that could be improved, it's not a mad system, but people can make it so for each other.   

Also the fact that family law cases are held in camera means a lot of the population don't know what really goes on and if they did they might think twice about going down the High Court route themselves.  

Maybe Alan Shatter who is an expert on family law could come up with a transparent family friendly court system with low costs and avoid costly barriesters etc.


----------



## Sunny (18 Oct 2011)

Bronte said:


> It's not as black and white as that. You could stay married but move out.
> 
> The system is adversarial, maybe that could be improved, it's not a mad system, but people can make it so for each other.
> 
> ...


 
Of course you can move out but why on earth would you want to remain married considering the legal implications?  

Is legal aid available in family law cases?


----------



## Complainer (18 Oct 2011)

Sunny said:


> Is legal aid available in family law cases?


Yes, on a means-tested and prioritised basis;

http://www.legalaidboard.ie/lab/publishing.nsf/Content/Civil_Legal_Aid


----------



## Sunny (18 Oct 2011)

Complainer said:


> Yes, on a means-tested and prioritised basis;
> 
> http://www.legalaidboard.ie/lab/publishing.nsf/Content/Civil_Legal_Aid


 
Thanks for that. Wonder how long that will escape the cuts! Didn't they look to chop it recently in the UK?


----------



## Bronte (18 Oct 2011)

Sunny said:


> Of course you can move out but why on earth would you want to remain married considering the legal implications?


 
What legal implications are you referring to?  Other than inheritance rules.


----------



## Sunny (18 Oct 2011)

Bronte said:


> What legal implications are you referring to? Other than inheritance rules.


 
You can't move on with your life and get married again. Inheritance problems. Custody issues. Possible problems with the family home and mortgage. Child Maintenance. etc etc etc

None of these can be sorted by just 'moving out'. Leaving a marriage for whatever reason can be very complicated. I was just wondering if there were some people stuck because they couldn't afford taking the chance of racking up huge legal bills. Wasn't sure if legal aid was available for family law cases but it seems to be.


----------



## DB74 (18 Oct 2011)

So the upshot of being awarded costs is that you still have to pay your own solicitor and then, if the other party doesn't pay you the costs as awarded by the court, you have to chase them for the money and maybe resort to engaging your solicitor again to chase them for the money, for which you have to pay the solicitor again.


----------



## mf1 (18 Oct 2011)

I think its more a matter of only sue people who have money and are a mark for whatever you might be awarded. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. 

mf


----------



## DB74 (18 Oct 2011)

That's no good if you are the defendant, as is the case with the OP


----------



## mf1 (18 Oct 2011)

He could have chosen not to defend and then there would have been a judgment marked against him. Better to defend. 

mf


----------

