A niece who stole from her uncle’s law firm has been ordered to pay back more than £90,000 plus a further £100,000 in costs and damages.

Fenella Carter was jailed for 20 months in April last year after admitting the theft of £33,700 while book keeping for her uncle Jerry Carter’s legal practice.

Almost all of that money was spent on the purchase of a horse box.

In June this year, Miss Carter, by then released from prison, was disqualified from acting as a company director for six years.

But at a cost hearing, allegations were made that the sum she had stolen was much higher and amounted, according to analysis carried out by Carters Ltd’s former book keeper Amanda Shields, to more than £142,500.

Deemster Sharon Roberts ordered Miss Carter to repay a total of £90,561 - the balance left after taking into account the £35,135 she had repaid and the £16,816 she had properly been paid for her book keeping services.

She also ordered her to pay a further £103,490 in costs and damages, taking the total to £194,051.

Miss Carter, of Christian Avenue, Peel, had been contracted through her company FCS Ltd to provide bookkeeping services for Carters, her uncle’s legal services company.

The thefts began when she was aged 25 and ended when she was 26.

Some of the stolen money was transferred into her personal bank account in September 2010 and February and June 2011 and some was transferred into FCS Ltd in August 2009 and February 2011.

Her offending came to light in October 2011 when a paralegal complained about not being paid. When Mr Carter investigated, he found £6,200 had been taken from the company’s client reserve account.

At a meeting in November, she admitted stealing £9,200 and told her uncle: ’I have been very naughty and taken the money.’

She said she would repay the money and denied any further theft.

But further discrepancies were revealed including significant overpayments to Miss Carter and FCS. It emerged than in September 2010 she had removed £8,000 from the dormant client account of a deceased client of the law firm.

The high court heard that Mr Carter’s health had suffered and his firm had also sustained reputational damage.

Deemster Roberts said Miss Carter had shown no contrition or any acceptance of the effect of her thefts.