The High Court has proposed striking out Tinka Zapryanova’s professional negligence claims against three solicitors’ firms, finding they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, amounted to an abuse of process, were bound to fail or had no reasonable chance of succeeding. The judge said he would hear the parties on the final orders and costs. No application to dismiss was made by the fourth firm named in the case.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2025, Mr Justice Micheál O’Higgins considered applications under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The claims arose from legal services provided in connection with Zapryanova’s personal injury claim after a November 2017 road crash. The judgment records that the other driver’s insurer admitted liability and that the underlying claim was proceeding as an assessment of damages only.
Zapryanova alleged negligence by Rochford Gibbons Solicitors, Anderson & Gallagher Solicitors and Bernard L. Gaughran & Co Solicitors. Her complaints included failures to obtain records, advise her, prepare documents accurately and communicate with her. She also alleged deceit and deliberate wrongdoing. Those were allegations in her pleadings; the judge found they were not supported by evidence. Each firm denied the claims and sought to have them dismissed.
The judge said Zapryanova had not identified how the alleged acts or omissions caused actual loss or prejudice to her personal injury claim. He found that an initial omission of the accident location from a PIAB form was corrected when requested, and that PIAB declined to assess the claim because medical reports showed an interaction between injuries arising from different causes. He also noted that liability for the crash had been admitted.
For the claim against the third firm, the judge said it would have been better if Zapryanova had been told sooner that the firm had dissolved in July 2020. But he found no identifiable loss or prejudice from the delay. He also recorded that she had not responded to repeated requests for instructions during 2020, and that the personal injury summons was issued by the fourth firm in February 2021.
The judge had adjourned the dismissal applications to allow Zapryanova time to obtain an independent expert report on the alleged professional negligence. She chose not to obtain one. He concluded that the absence of independent evidence was fatal to the claims against the first three firms in this case.
The judgment does not determine Zapryanova’s underlying personal injury claim or the separate claim against the fourth firm. It states that final orders and costs remained to be addressed.