The High Court lifted a stay on Daniel McAteer’s action against three solicitors after finding that he had clarified he was claiming losses on his own account, rather than seeking to recover losses suffered by two companies.
Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley’s judgment concerned a procedural application, not the trial of the underlying allegations. The defendants had previously sought proper particulars of McAteer’s case. In March 2012, Mr Justice MacMenamin declined to strike out the proceedings but stayed them until McAteer provided fuller replies on who had suffered loss, how he said he suffered it, how it was calculated and who was alleged to have breached a duty.
McAteer’s solicitor sent a detailed reply in May 2012. It said he claimed losses as a client of Adams Corporate Solicitors, as a member of a joint venture, and in connection with a proposed medical development in Tralee, County Kerry. The reply set out claimed figures including £4.5 million for a share of land-related profit and £17 million for a share of projected development profit. It also listed a claim of up to £2.8 million concerning Michael Desmond’s shares and ongoing, unquantified costs. These were claims and estimates advanced by McAteer, not findings by the court.
At the hearing, his counsel clarified that McAteer claimed only his own loss and did not claim as a shareholder. Counsel accepted that references to shareholder loss should not have been made and that McAteer could not claim losses suffered by the companies. The defendants argued that the replies remained inadequate and sought a permanent stay, saying McAteer had not explained how he would have received the claimed money.
Justice O’Malley said the earlier replies had been unsatisfactory in part because McAteer had tried to pursue claims tied both to his own loss and to losses of the companies. She found that the question of where the loss lay had now been answered. While she acknowledged the defendants’ criticisms of the particulars, she considered them criticisms of the merits of McAteer’s case rather than a core difficulty in defending it.
The judge granted the relief sought in McAteer’s motion and vacated the stay. The ruling allowed the action to proceed; it did not determine liability, establish that the projected profits would have been realised, or award compensation.