The High Court dismissed Anthony and Anne Elliott’s claim against an accountant and a solicitor over professional advice relating to finance for a shop purchase, ruling that the negligence claims were brought outside the six-year limitation period. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh on 16 November 2017, concerned a preliminary issue; it did not determine whether the alleged professional negligence occurred.
The proceedings began in 2013. The plaintiffs alleged that advice about an endowment mortgage or related savings plan led them into a financial arrangement unsuitable for their needs. The bank originally named as the first defendant had already been removed from the case by an earlier order. The second plaintiff took no part in the hearing before Ní Raifeartaigh.
The first plaintiff told the court that he had asked for a simple loan to buy the shop and did not understand that the 2002 arrangement was an endowment mortgage involving risk and his family home as security. He said he first realised the nature of the product in 2008 and argued that his loss could not be identified until the policy was cashed out in 2011. The defendants denied liability and argued that any cause of action arose in 2002, or by 2004 at the latest, when refinancing took place.
The court noted a discrepancy between the pleaded claim—that the plaintiffs believed they had an endowment policy but received a home savings plan—and the first plaintiff’s sworn account that he had asked for a simple loan and received an endowment mortgage. Applying the limitation principles in earlier financial-loss cases, the judge held that, on either account, any advice about the arrangement should have been given when it was entered into or refinanced. The cause of action therefore accrued in 2002 or, at the latest, 2004. The 2008 discovery date did not postpone accrual, and the judge found that the statutory provision concerning concealment did not assist the plaintiff.
The judge also addressed whether the case against the solicitor could proceed. She concluded that, on the pleaded case and without an amendment to the pleadings, no prima facie negligence case had been made out. She said that if the claim were instead treated as alleging that the plaintiff sought a simple loan, evidence about the solicitor’s retainer and instructions would be needed to assess the scope of any duty. That question did not alter the result: the court dismissed the claims against both the accountant and solicitor as time-barred.