Law firm settles €3.3m costs bill with developer

DUBLIN-based law firm William Fry has settled its legal action against developer Liam Carroll over his failure to pay €3.3 million of a €4.8m legal costs bill.

The bill was in connection with an unsuccessful action against Mr Carroll and others over controversial deals concerning the redevelopment of The Square shopping centre in Tallaght.

The Commercial Court previously heard Mr Carroll was contending the bill was excessive and had instructed other solicitors to bring a complaint about it to the Law Society.

Fry’s denied those claims and, in seeking summary judgment for €3.34m, said it had concerns its position relating to other creditors of Mr Carroll may be prejudiced.

When the case was transferred to the Commercial Court last month, Mr Justice Peter Kelly agreed to adjourn it to yesterday after the sides indicated they would try and reach a resolution.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Kevin Feeney was told by John Gleeson, counsel for Fry’s, after further talks between the sides, that the case had settled and could be adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter.

No details of the settlement were disclosed.

The costs bill arose from a lengthy action in which Redfern Ltd, a company of Noel Smyth, sought €140m damages against Mr Carroll and two other developers — Larry O’Mahony and Thomas McFeely — over their involvement in broken and secret deals related to the redevelopment of The Square shopping centre.

The case was initiated in 2007, began in July 2009, and ran for 63 days.

Last year, Mr Justice Brian McGovern dismissed Redfern’s claims. An order for costs in favour of Mr Carroll was made but a stay applies on that pending Redfern’s appeal to the Supreme Court, which could take three years.

Fry’s conducted Mr Carroll’s defence in the Redfern action and on October 28 served a bill of costs for some €4.87m on him, including VAT and instructions fees on a solicitor/own client basis. Fry’s said €3.3m is outstanding.

Commitments by or on behalf of Mr Carroll during the trial that fees would be paid imminently or appropriate security would be provided were not honoured, Fry’s claimed.

At the Commercial Court last month, Bernard Dunleavy, for Mr Carroll, argued the “extraordinary” costs bill was out of step with estimates provided to Mr Carroll and should be taxed by a High Court taxing master. The outcome of the appeal should be awaited given the order for costs in favour of Mr Carroll, he argued.

On that occasion, Mr Justice Kelly said Fry’s was within its rights to bring the proceedings and they should not be required to wait and see what costs would be paid by Redfern after the Supreme Court determined their appeal.