The High Court has refused a solicitor’s applications to dismiss a client’s professional negligence proceedings for delay, or to strike them out as bound to fail or vexatious.
In a judgment delivered on 7 December 2021, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter said Aidan McGuinness had delayed in prosecuting his 2014 case against solicitor Adrian Greaney. The court found the delay from August 2016 to October 2019 was inordinate and inexcusable, and accepted that it had caused some prejudice to Mr Greaney.
But the judge concluded that the balance of justice did not favour dismissal. He noted that Mr Greaney had also failed to comply with a 2015 discovery order requiring both parties to exchange documents. The judge further considered the link between the negligence claim and separate proceedings in which Mr Greaney was seeking legal costs from Mr McGuinness. Dismissing the negligence case could leave Mr Greaney free to pursue those costs without the related claims being heard, the judgment said.
Mr McGuinness’s 2014 claim concerns legal services Mr Greaney provided in connection with earlier proceedings against solicitors Michael F. Butler and Joan Devine. Those earlier proceedings arose from investments in Bartragh Island, County Mayo, where Mr McGuinness said he had paid €276,000 for a 12.5% interest, and the purchase of Miller’s House in Killala with five other investors.
Mr McGuinness alleges that Mr Greaney dismissed him as a client in 2013, failed to carry the earlier case through, did not follow his instructions and made errors in the pleadings. He also alleges negligence relating to a separate summons and to dealings with Ulster Bank. Mr Greaney denies liability. These allegations were not determined in the judgment.
The judge also rejected Mr Greaney’s argument that the claims were bound to fail. At this stage, the court had to take the plaintiff’s disputed version of events at its highest. If accepted, the judge said, the allegations that instructions were not followed and a key claim was omitted could not be said to have no credible basis. He noted that the claims might ultimately prove weak and that Mr Greaney might prevail, but they did not meet the test for striking them out.
The judge also refused to dismiss the proceedings as frivolous or vexatious. He found that reviving the negligence case in response to the revival of related costs proceedings did not establish the exceptional improper purpose required for that order.
The court refused all the relief sought. It did not decide whether Mr Greaney was negligent or what loss, if any, Mr McGuinness suffered. The judge said both parties should complete discovery and bring the case to trial as quickly as possible, warning that the court was unlikely to tolerate further delay.