The High Court has struck out a man’s professional negligence claim against the solicitors who represented him in an earlier dispute, ruling that the proceedings were an abuse of process. It also refused his application for judgment in default of defence, despite the solicitors’ delay in filing one.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty on 25 July 2021, concerned a claim arising from the man’s unsuccessful 2015 case against Connaught Gold Cooperative Society Limited. He had argued that a handwritten document about credit at the cooperative’s cattle marts created a binding agreement. The High Court rejected that claim, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in 2016, finding the document lacked essential detail.
The plaintiff later brought proceedings challenging the original judge’s impartiality after learning of a family connection by marriage between the judge and a solicitor at the firm that represented him. The High Court dismissed that case, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision in 2018. In the present proceedings, the plaintiff said he no longer sought to challenge the original judgment. His negligence claim focused mainly on the solicitors’ alleged failure to call witnesses and to disclose the relationship.
The defendants had not filed a defence despite court extensions and assurances that they would do so. They said the plaintiff’s replies to requests for particulars were inadequate and sought to have the case dismissed. The judge criticised their handling of the delay, noting that they had not alerted the plaintiff or the court to their concerns about his replies. However, she held that judgment in default would not be just in the circumstances.
The court found that the pleaded claim disclosed professional negligence as a possible cause of action, so it could not be dismissed on the pleadings alone. But, examining the factual basis under the court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process, the judge found that the plaintiff could not identify what the uncalled witnesses would have said or show that their evidence could have changed the result. The earlier courts’ decisions had rested primarily on the terms of the written document.
The judge also found no credible basis to show that the solicitors’ alleged failure to disclose the family connection caused an identifiable loss. The Court of Appeal had previously considered and rejected the bias argument. The High Court therefore struck out the claim as an abuse of process and refused judgment in default of defence. The ruling did not order a rehearing of the original contract dispute.