The High Court has struck out Patrick Whearty’s professional negligence claim against solicitor Michael Lanigan after Mr Whearty confirmed he had no expert advice or report supporting it.
Mr Justice Meenan ruled on 21 May 2020 that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process. The application was at an interlocutory stage, and the judgment invited the parties to make further submissions on consequential orders, including costs. It did not determine those matters.
Mr Lanigan had applied to strike out the claim, which alleged that he provided substandard representation and advice in connection with multiple road traffic prosecutions. Mr Whearty also alleged that the solicitor acted in concert with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and claimed damages for alleged false imprisonment, mental health effects, loss of livelihood and family-related losses. The judgment records these as claims made by Mr Whearty, not findings by the court.
The court described Mr Lanigan’s representation of Mr Whearty between May 2008 and June 2010. The proceedings concerned convictions and sentences including imprisonment and driving disqualifications. The judgment also noted that some appeals were successful, while others were not. In particular, Mr Whearty’s appeal against his December 2009 conviction was unsuccessful; one of his claims was that Mr Lanigan had failed to appeal it.
Mr Lanigan’s application relied on an expert report obtained for the defence, which supported the solicitor’s advice and conduct. Mr Whearty did not identify an independent expert report supporting his allegations. The judge said a professional negligence action must have appropriate expert support and that continuing such proceedings without it could amount to an abuse of process.
Mr Whearty appeared in person. At a hearing on 16 January 2020, the court gave him six weeks to obtain advice or a report from an appropriate expert and adjourned the application to 28 February. The court was then told that no such advice or report had been received. Mr Justice Meenan concluded the claim remained unsupported and struck it out.