A lawyer has been ordered to pay £75,000 to two businessmen for failing to represent them properly at a winding-up hearing.

Costs were awarded to Jonathan and Jamie Irving following their long-running legal battle over the winding up of their Street Heritage firm in February 2010.

In September last year, the high court ruled that Street Heritage’s advocate Jerry Carter had been negligent by not turning up in time for the winding-up hearing.

Deemster Corlett concluded it would have been ’very probable’ that the court would have agreed to adjourn the case, giving the company time to attempt to put together a rescue package.

Now the Deemster assessed the Irvings’ costs at up to £125,000 and ordered Jerry Carter and his law firm to pay £75,000 of that immediately, on account.

Mr Irving senior told the Examiner: ’We’ve been awarded up to £125,000 in costs - £75k now and up to a further £50k after the final stage.

’As liability was established against Mr Carter over a year ago, we are hoping that after nearly nine years we might now be able to get to that final stage sooner rather than later.’

Deemster Corlett accepted that the Irvings had not succeeded on every aspect of their case.

They failed in establishing negligence and breach of contract during the period after the winding-up order was made and they also failed in the allegation that the liquidator had been approached to obtain confidential information for a collateral purpose.

But he added: ’The failure by the claimants to succeed wholly on liability misses the point - that the damage had been done by the time the winding-up order was made and that the case on negligence and breach of contract in relation to the earlier failures of Mr Carter was overwhelming.’

Deemster Corlett said the core issue was a failure to arrive at court at the correct time, a failure which led to an unopposed winding-up order being made.

This combined with Mr Carter’s failure to ask the Deemster to return to court to hear his clients’ side of the story and in particular to advise the Deemster that he had an agreement with his opponent that the hearing was to be adjourned.

’As a result the claimants lost the near certainty of obtaining an adjournment and their chance of obtaining a dismissal of the winding-up petition was lost,’ he said.

The Deemster said it is reasonable to assume that the claimants may recover about £125,000 of their legal costs.

He said: ’Overall this does not seem at all unreasonable for a five-day trial and its preparation. I consider that the claimants should have 60% of that sum on account.’