The High Court has dismissed Michael Butler and William Butler’s claim against Nelson & Co Solicitors over legal work connected with a housing development in Clonmel, finding that the plaintiffs had not made out a case the firm had to answer.
The ruling followed an application by the defendant after the plaintiffs completed their evidence. The court assessed their case at its highest, but was also entitled to consider whether the evidence was credible and sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The defendant had indicated it would call evidence if the application failed.
The brothers and two other partners developed a site at Airmount, Clonmel, where planning permission covered 111 houses. The defendant firm acted in transactions involving house sales, Anglo Irish Bank finance and the development company BOSOD Limited. The precise scope of its role was disputed.
The plaintiffs alleged breaches of contract, negligence and fiduciary duty, including failures to ensure independent advice, protect their interests in the partnership, account for or properly disburse funds, and arrange payments from sale proceeds. They also challenged the use of the Lewagh Mor lands as loan security and the handling of partnership documents. The court had previously removed claims for €11 million in alleged lost profits and €1 million for the Lewagh Mor lands. The remaining claimed sums included €2.75 million for half the value of the Clonmel lands and €1.1 million said to have been advanced by family members.
The judge found no credible evidence that the solicitor advised the brothers on the partnership agreement or acted for them in negotiating its terms. The evidence, the court said, showed they had been advised to obtain independent legal advice; Michael Butler had consulted another solicitor. The judge also found no evidence of loss from clauses that were later changed or never used, or that the firm caused the development’s financing difficulties. The initial €5.4 million Anglo facility could not have covered the full cost of building all 111 houses, and the solicitor had not been retained to arrange additional finance.
The court also rejected claims concerning title problems that delayed sales, finding the solicitor had not been told about them and that they were not apparent from the title records. It found no evidence supporting the claim for family borrowings, including proof of amounts or a money trail. The judge said a claim for building-work payments belonged to a company that was not a party to these proceedings.
The court concluded that, even taking the plaintiffs’ evidence and arguments at their highest, they had not established a case for the defendant to answer. The order was that the claim be dismissed.