Cadden -v- Vesey & another [2016] IESC 75 (16 December 2016)

Cadden -v- Vesey & another [2016] IESC 75 (16 December 2016)

Messrs. Kent Carty were entitled to the balance of party and party costs based on the retainer and undertaking signed by Mr. Vesey; the Payment Order and Freezing Order were valid and not tainted by alleged procedural defects or misconduct; allegations of professional negligence were discontinued or dismissed and did not affect entitlement to costs.

Citation
[2016] IESC 75
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Fabian Cadden; Defendant/appellant: Patrick Vesey; Notice Party: Kent Carty Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Lien, No Foal No Fee, Party and Party Costs, Undertakings, Retainer Termination, Freezing Order, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Solicitor's Lien No Foal No Fee Party and Party Costs Undertakings Retainer Termination +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fabian Cadden

Plaintiff/respondent

Patrick Vesey

Defendant/appellant

Kent Carty Solicitors

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Messrs. Kent Carty were entitled to the balance of party and party costs after retainer termination
  2. 2 Whether the High Court Payment Order and Freezing Order were valid
  3. 3 Whether allegations of professional negligence or misconduct affected entitlement to costs

Ratio Decidendi

Messrs. Kent Carty were entitled to the balance of party and party costs based on the retainer and undertaking signed by Mr. Vesey; the Payment Order and Freezing Order were valid and not tainted by alleged procedural defects or misconduct; allegations of professional negligence were discontinued or dismissed and did not affect entitlement to costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Messrs. Kent Carty entitled to balance of party and party costs
  • Costs awarded to Messrs. Kent Carty (€4,500 incl. VAT) and Mr. Cadden (€3,000 incl. VAT) against Mr. Vesey