Agreement reached over aspects of €5m legal costs associated with Lissadell rights of way case
Agreement has been reached between Sligo County Council and the owners of Lissadell estate over aspects of a €5m legal costs bill sought for the marathon action over public rights of way across the historic estate.
The main dispute was over a total instructions fee for about €2.7m sought by Sligo based McGovern Walsh Solicitors, solicitors for the owners, barristers Edward Walsh and Constance Cassidy.
An instructions fee of almost €1.4m was sought for the 58 day High Court case and about €1.3m for instructions relating to the nine-day Supreme Court appeal.
The Council's legal costs accountant Paul Conlon maintained the instructions fee was excessive but Alan Murphy, legal costs accountant for the owners, argued the solicitors had played a “heavy” role in the long and complex case.
The bill of costs came before High Court Taxing Master Paul Behan earlier this week and a hearing to decide the costs issues still in dispute was expected to run into next week.
However, Mr Behan was told on Wednesday the matter had settled and he agreed to adjourn it to next month.
During this week's hearing, Mr Behan was told there was no dispute over brief fees of €60,000 each sought for two senior counsel, Brian Murray and Eoin McCullough, and €40,000 for junior counsel Peter Bland.
Those brief fees had been agreed in full, he added.
The brief fees were similar those sought by barristers for the Council, Mr Conlon told the Taxing Master.
Agreement had also been reached on daily “refresher” fees of €4,000 each for senior counsel and €2,600 for junior counsel.
The owners’ case, initiated in 2009, ran for 58 days in the High Court and nine in the Supreme Court incurring total costs estimated at about €7m.
The Supreme Court had in 2014 ordered the Council to pay three-quarters of the legal costs incurred by the owners in the High and Supreme Courts. The Council must also pay its own legal costs bill, estimated at about €2m.
In their proceedings against the Council, the owners had sought declarations there were no public rights of way over four routes in Lissadell.
After their case was rejected by the High Court, they appealed to the Supreme Court which ruled in late 2013 there were no public rights of way over three of the routes but found there was a right of way over part of the fourth route, a coastal route to the beach at Lissadell.
The court later granted the owners three-quarters of their costs in the High and Supreme Courts.
The owners initiated the case in January 2009 in response to the Council passing a resolution in December 2008 aimed at protecting public rights of way at Lissadell.
Before that resolution, the Council wrote to the owners warning litigation was inevitable if they persisted in closing off routes at Lissadell.
The Council argued the owners were told that resolution had no legal effect and also submitted it, as a public body, has a duty to protect public rights of way.
