The High Court has struck out in full claims brought by Arnaud Gaultier and Sup Pliable Limited against accountant Mark Reilly and solicitor Aine McGuigan, finding that the proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were bound to fail and amounted to an abuse of process.
Mr Justice Cregan gave the decision on 8 April 2024 after hearing three applications: Reilly’s applications to strike out the claims brought by Gaultier and the company, and McGuigan’s application to strike out both plaintiffs’ claims against her. The applications were made under the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The judgment said Reilly had been retained by Gaultier’s estranged wife, Louise Swords, as an accounting and tax adviser, while McGuigan had been retained to represent her in future matrimonial proceedings. The judge found that neither adviser had a contract with Gaultier or owed him a duty of care. Claims concerning advice to Swords were matters for her; claims alleging damage to the company were matters for the company to pursue.
Gaultier’s pleaded claims against Reilly included professional negligence, collusion in tort, disparagement or defamation, advice concerning assets, tax returns and property, deceit, and an alleged contract based on an email exchange. The judge said the email exchange was preliminary negotiation, not a contract with Reilly. He also found the defamation and deceit claims unsustainable on the pleadings and evidence before him.
The company had no legal representation at the hearing. The judge said Gaultier was not entitled to represent it under earlier decisions in the proceedings and that it had not defended the applications. He was satisfied it had been properly served. McGuigan’s application was also uncontested by the company.
In explaining his abuse-of-process finding, the judge referred to a November 2023 email in which Gaultier discussed the parties’ legal costs and proposed settling the cases. The judgment said the email supported the court’s view that Gaultier had arranged his assets to shield himself from potential costs while exposing the defendants to substantial legal costs. These were the judge’s findings in deciding the strike-out applications.
The court struck out all proceedings by both plaintiffs against both defendants. It did not decide the question of costs at this hearing; Justice Cregan said he would hear further submissions on costs.