The Supreme Court dismissed Martin Horan’s appeal against the dismissal of his professional negligence claim against solicitors John O’Dwyer and Evan O’Dwyer, practising as Crean O’Cleirigh and O’Dwyer. It held that the High Court judge had jurisdiction to dismiss the proceedings after Horan failed to attend court when his case was due to be heard.
Horan’s claim arose from the solicitors’ role in earlier litigation over his claim to one fifth of a National Lottery syndicate win. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled he was not a syndicate member when the winning ticket was bought. Horan later alleged that the solicitors had negligently handled submissions in his appeal, contributing to the loss. The solicitors denied the claim.
Horan sought damages including the alleged lost one-fifth share of a jackpot, stated in the proceedings as €459,059.17, an estimated €300,000 in legal costs and an unquantified loss of investment opportunity. The negligence claim itself was not tried in the proceedings addressed by this appeal.
The claim was set for hearing on 26 July 2011. After an adjournment, the High Court President specially fixed it for 4 October. On that date, further adjournment applications were refused by the President, but the judge who was to hear the case allowed it to be put back to 5 October so Horan could provide additional particulars of negligence by letter.
Horan was absent when the case was called on 5 October. The court was told he was travelling from Mayo and put the matter back until 2pm. He did not attend then either. The High Court dismissed his claim for abuse of process and awarded costs to the solicitors, citing the repeated disruption and the absence of an explanation for his non-attendance. The judgment records that Horan’s counsel had also reported difficulties with the newly instructed legal team.
On appeal, Horan argued through counsel that the High Court should have given him another opportunity to advance his case. The solicitors’ counsel submitted that he was frustrating the administration of justice and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The Supreme Court said the issue was not whether the claim should be dismissed for delay, but whether the High Court could dismiss proceedings when a plaintiff failed to attend to prosecute them, particularly on a specially fixed hearing date. It noted the court had adjourned the case to accommodate Horan on 4 and 5 October, and that no valid reason had been given for his absence at 2pm on 5 October. The Court concluded that the High Court judge acted within his jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The dismissal of the appeal left the High Court’s dismissal and costs order undisturbed.