The High Court has ordered Noreen Hynes to provide further particulars in her action against four solicitors practising as Seamus Maguire & Co. The order addresses what information must be supplied before trial. It does not determine whether the solicitors are liable or whether Hynes suffered the losses she claims.
In a judgment delivered on 4 May 2022, Mr Justice Allen directed Hynes to reply to specified paragraphs of the defendants’ notice for further and better particulars dated 1 November 2021. The paragraphs are 1, 2, 8(iv), 11(i)(c), 15, 16, 18(iv), 18(v), 21(ii) to (viii), 22, 23, 24 and 25.
The action began in 2013. Hynes’ statement of claim alleges that the solicitors mishandled property and loan transactions, including transactions concerning a property at Moongate, County Wexford. She also alleges failures to account for money handled through the firm’s client account and the unauthorised sharing of confidential information. These remain allegations in the underlying action.
The defendants sought further detail about the transactions, Hynes’ interests in several property syndicates, the alleged dissemination of information, and the losses claimed. Justice Allen said the defendants were entitled to know the claims they would have to meet at trial. He found that several matters had not been adequately particularised, including the information allegedly disclosed, when and to whom it was disclosed, and the claimed damage to Hynes’ business and reputation.
The judgment records that Hynes’ affidavit on the motion put some figures on claimed losses, including about €1.52 million concerning the Moongate property and €37,413 relating to a one-twelfth share of retained profits from Tuskar Residential Investment Properties Limited. Those figures were presented as claims, not findings by the court.
The judge also rejected some requests for additional detail. He said no further particulars were required on who allegedly drew down the Anglo loan or whether Hynes gave express instructions for it, and considered the pleaded duty to account for her money clear. He nevertheless found that the alleged breaches of that duty and several other parts of the claim required clarification.
The defendants were substantially successful on the motion. The judge stated provisionally that Hynes should pay its costs, with enforcement stayed until the trial, and listed the motion for mention on 13 May 2022 in case either party wished to argue otherwise. The judgment therefore records a provisional costs view, not a final costs order. It gives no decision on the merits of the action.