Order of summary judgment in favour of solicitor firm for unpaid fees is upheld on appeal

Court of Appeal – summary judgment – appeal against decision granting summary judgment against the appellant in the sum of €216,717.84 – solicitors retained by appellant in family law proceedings – transferred to the High Court after unfruitful discussions so that family law and chancery proceedings could be heard at the same time – family law proceedings came on for hearing – letter in relation to costs - Firm did seek and receive from the appellant substantial payments on account of fees in October 2011 and January 2012 in the total amount of €104,018.90 – judgment in the High Court proceedings – appellant sought a breakdown - stated in this letter that she wished to pay the Firm whatever was owed as soon as she could - total amount due was stated to be €216,717.84 – sought VAT invoice for company - appellant indicates that she has difficulty in paying the account until she has a new business up and running – demand for payment – proceedings issued – judgment of the High Court - principles applicable to applications for summary judgment - statutory framework applicable to solicitors’ bills of costs – application for stay – effectively asked the court to revisit its judgment and to refer the Firm’s account to taxation – refused - appeal - Respondents’ Notice - application to adduce new evidence on appeal refused - claim that the Firm had undertaken work on behalf of the Company, and that the Firm failed to distinguish in the bills furnished to the appellant between work done on behalf of the appellant personally, and work done on behalf of the Company - no evidence or no credible evidence or any credible basis upon which it might be suggested that evidence might become available to support the appellant’s claim that the Firm had provided services to the Company - fact that Senior Counsel had mentioned the Company in her fee note did not alter matters, particularly in light of the contents of the affidavit sworn by Senior Counsel in which she had made it clear that she had at all times advised and acted on behalf of the appellant personally - at all times made it clear that they were not acting on behalf of the Company - analysis and conclusion of the trial judge on this issue was undoubtedly correct - not a scintilla of evidence that the Firm conducted any work on behalf of the Company at all – reliance on chancery proceedings misplaced - no evidence that the appellant obtained the leave of the court to take a derivative action on behalf of the Company – appeal dismissed –