Sark Electricity Limited (SEL) may have to pay its own former lawyers more than £180,000 in unpaid fees, plus £35,000 in interest, after losing one of two court cases between the pair.
Collas Crill sued SEL for the unpaid legal fees which it won, while a counter-case alleging negligence by the law firm is still ongoing.
While that case is being decided, the payment has been stayed.
Unpaid fees
The law firm had acted for Sark Electricity between 2012 and 2025, when other firm, AFR, was appointed.
Collas Crill’s advocates advised the firm in its disputes with the Sark Electricity Price Control Commissioner who sets power price caps and regulations in the island.
The law firm also assisted SEL during parts of its dispute with Chief Pleas, which is trying to buy the electricity company through a compulsory purchase order.
SEL’s Managing Director had previously confirmed in court that his company had received nearly £1million in invoices from Collas Crill before the two parted company.
Alan Witney-Price – who represented the company himself during a court hearing earlier this year – said the electricity company had paid more than £800,000 to the law firm, before alleging the fees were unreasonable.
The court heard that Mr Witney-Price had agreed to pay £5,000 a month to clear the debt. When those payments stopped, Collas Crill took the case to court.
Negligence
At the same time, Mr Witney-Price launched a counter claim against Collas Crill, arguing that some of the legal advice his firm had received had been “negligent”, saying this was why he had stopped paying off the bill.
Speaking via a video link at a previous court hearing, Mr Witney-Price alleged Collas Crill had failed to advise him correctly on several legal matters, including the potential legal costs he could recoup, and the impact of human rights law on one of the firm’s cases.
Collas Crill had applied for both SEL’s defence and counter claim to be struck off as having an “unrealistic” chance of success and for a summary judgment to be made.
However, in May, then-Bailiff Sir Richard McMahon said he reserved judgement and would let both sides know his decision in writing “in due course”, after considering their arguments.
That judgment has now been published setting out what the Bailiff felt was the right course of action.
Judgment
Sir Richard delivered a summary judgment on the case, avoiding the need for a trial.
He found in favour of Collas Crill, agreeing that SEL owes £182,558.50 in unpaid legal fees, plus interest, which is understood to be in the region of £35,000.
He said Mr Witney-Price had previously acknowledged this debt by agreeing to pay £5,000 per month, which included a condition that the full amount would be payable if SEL defaulted on the monthly payments.
The Bailiff said the award would be stayed until the counter claim was settled.
He said that can “still be pursued and that may reduce or extinguish the amount that the Defendant is required to pay to the Plaintiff”.
Having previously encouraged Mr Witney-Price to appoint legal representation, Sir Richard has encouraged SEL to amend the counter-claim which focuses on allegations of negligent legal advice.
He said that is a “cross-action, which is capable of being pursued anyway, that can now be pursued separately”.
He added that he is “satisfied that there is scope for the Defendant to amend the Defences and Counterclaim, by which I mean focusing on what is pleaded in the Counterclaim, as I have sought to explain”.
