The High Court has refused an application by five solicitors practising as Tallans Solicitors to strike out Leonard Kinsella’s claim over a 2008 undertaking concerning money allegedly owed by the late George McCarron.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 11 July 2017. Mr Kinsella claims €190,460.71, along with legal costs, arising from a letter sent by Patrick Tallan & Co. Solicitors on 29 April 2008. The letter said the firm undertook to discharge the sum due to Mr Kinsella from the proceeds of a sale of remaining lands in Folio LH13061F, in consideration of the release of a lien on a land certificate.
The judgment records that planning permission for a portion of the land was never granted and an option agreement for the remaining lands was never exercised. The defendants argued that the undertaking depended on those events and therefore had no continuing effect. Mr Kinsella’s position was that he had released the lien and the sum remained payable.
His proceedings seek a declaration that the defendants breached the undertaking, damages for breach of undertaking, misrepresentation or contract, and ancillary relief. The defendants’ defence includes arguments that the claim is statute-barred, that the letter was not an undertaking by the solicitors, and that the claim should be brought against Mr McCarron’s estate.
The defendants applied to strike out the statement of claim under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The judge held that the pleadings set out a justiciable claim: Mr Kinsella alleged that the letter contained an undertaking given on behalf of the solicitors and that it had been breached, while the defendants denied that. That dispute did not show that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was frivolous or vexatious.
Considering the inherent jurisdiction, the judge said the key question was whether it was “very clear” that the defendant had no case. His answer was no. He declined to dismiss the proceedings, finding no basis to apply that jurisdiction.
The application was refused. The court made no determination on whether the undertaking was binding or whether Mr Kinsella is entitled to the money. A possible amendment to the statement of claim was to be discussed by the parties, and the judge made no ruling on it at that time.