Select a region
The daughter of the former Seigneur of St. John officially owes a Jersey law firm almost £270,000 in unpaid legal bills, the Royal Court has ruled.
In a recent judgment, the Court struck out a counterclaim by Tanya Dick-Stock and granted ‘summary judgment’ in favour of the partners of Carey Olsen, meaning they can seek to recover the £267,242 of unpaid fees that she owes the firm.
The work was carried out in 2017 and 2018 in relation to a long-running legal dispute between the family members of former St. John’s Manor owner and honorary Rwandan consul, John William Dick.
Last year, Royal Court papers revealed that Mrs Dick-Stock had been excluded from two family trusts, and that the money in them couldn’t be used to continue legal battles against her father.
Mrs Dick-Stock employed Carey Olsen to represent her, and the law firm issued six invoices to her between June and November 2018.
She was issued with a summons for payment that December but, in March 2019, Mrs Dick-Stock filed a counterclaim making allegations of professional negligence against the law firm.
Carey Olsen filed an official reply disputing the allegations four months later.
After that, no further legal steps were taken because Mrs Dick-Stock was prevented from taking part in any Royal Court proceedings – by way of a ‘debarment order’ - because of her failure to pay outstanding costs orders.
In April, the law firm sought to strike out Mrs Dick-Stock’s 2019 counterclaim and for a Court ruling on its claim for unpaid fees.
The judge, Master of the Royal Court Matthew Thompson, agreed, concluding that Mrs Dick-Stock had done nothing to pursue her counterclaim over the past three years.
He said: “[Carey Olsen] had claimed their fees which claim had been challenged and a counterclaim filed.
“That challenge therefore required the defendant [Mrs Dick-Stock] to pursue her counterclaim including taking the necessary steps to have the Debarment Order lifted.
“In essence, the defendant in respect of her counterclaim was in the position of a plaintiff and so should have attempted to pursue the proceedings.”
Advocate Thompson added: “The plaintiffs [Carey Olsen] by contrast were caught in a difficulty not of their own making.
“As a result of the debarment order, they had to wait a reasonable amount of time to see whether the defendant was going to have that order purged and then whether she was going to pursue the counterclaim to a conclusion.
“The plaintiffs have been more than patient in waiting nearly three years during which time nothing has occurred.”
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.