The High Court adjourned three motions in Rayan Restaurant Limited’s professional negligence action against solicitor Gerald Kean and barrister Francis McGagh, retaining control of the motions and giving the parties an opportunity to provide further material. It did not decide whether to strike out the action or require security for costs.
The company alleges that its former legal representatives mishandled earlier proceedings over a restaurant lease in Athlone. Its allegations include failing to seek relief against forfeiture, advise on interim relief, prepare the case and properly resist an application for security for costs. These are claims in the proceedings, not findings in this judgment.
The underlying dispute concerned the landlord’s re-entry to the premises in July 2003 and the company’s unsuccessful Circuit Court case. The company appealed, but its appeal was struck out in January 2006 after it failed to comply with an order for security for costs. In 2005, the High Court had ordered security against the company, finding that the evidence did not establish that the alleged wrongdoing caused its financial difficulty.
Justice Michael White said the present action was not obviously frivolous or vexatious. He also said the court had to guard against using the negligence case to relitigate matters already decided. The company’s financial position appeared weak, and the judge said it had not supplied the detailed financial records he would have expected in resisting security for costs. The court nevertheless identified gaps and conflicts in the material, including uncertainty about rent payments, the relationship between the company and the restaurant operator, and what was argued at the Circuit Court hearing.
The judge found, on the material then available, that the pleadings had invoked the Circuit Court’s equitable jurisdiction and did not prevent it from granting relief against forfeiture. But he said he did not know the arguments made at that hearing or the reasons for the decision. He also noted conflicting accounts of whether rent had been offered to the landlord and refused.
The court did not order production of documents or financial information. It adjourned the motions to a specific date, which the judgment does not state, and invited the parties to provide further information. It did not determine the limitation arguments, consolidate the separate proceedings, or resolve the negligence claim. The judgment records that the company’s director acknowledged the plaintiffs did not intend to proceed with a separate action against Kean.