Judgment: 2001-10-31 · Court archive

Supreme Court rejects Robert Ewing appeal seeking to reopen Abbeyville land dispute

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Robert Ewing
  • Anthony Kelly
  • The Law Society of Ireland
What

Supreme Court rejects Robert Ewing appeal seeking to reopen Abbeyville land dispute

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Abbeyville lands
  • Galway
  • Folio 1347
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Those arguments were rejected by the Circuit Court in 1996. William Ewing’s appeal was later dismissed by the High Court in Galway in July 1997. Because that High Court decision arose from a Circuit Court appeal, it was final and could not itself be appealed.

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Robert Ewing arising from a long-running dispute over the Abbeyville lands in County Galway, holding that the ownership issue had already been finally decided.

The dispute originated in a December 1982 agreement under which Ewing’s father, William Ewing, agreed to sell lands in Folio 1347, County Galway, to Anthony Kelly for £45,000. Kelly was registered as owner in May 1983.

Later Circuit Court proceedings concerned alleged trespass and a right of way. The Ewings counterclaimed that the sale and transfer were invalid, alleging among other matters that William Ewing lacked capacity, had been improperly influenced and had not received proper independent legal advice.

Those arguments were rejected by the Circuit Court in 1996. William Ewing’s appeal was later dismissed by the High Court in Galway in July 1997. Because that High Court decision arose from a Circuit Court appeal, it was final and could not itself be appealed.

Robert Ewing nevertheless began fresh High Court proceedings in May 1999. He again claimed ownership of the lands and made allegations against Kelly, several firms of solicitors and the Law Society of Ireland. The first six defendants obtained an order from Mr Justice O’Sullivan striking out those proceedings.

Mr Justice Murphy said the central purpose of the new action was to reopen the land dispute. That could not be done. The earlier courts had already heard and rejected the challenge to the sale, and Ewing was bound by that outcome.

The Supreme Court also found no coherent pleaded case of negligence or breach of contract against the solicitors. Allegations concerning their supposed motives or conduct did not identify acts capable of supporting a legal claim. The Law Society’s provision of names of solicitors who might act was also not capable of amounting to negligence.

The ruling therefore settles the appeal against the first six defendants. It does not determine the merits of Ewing’s wider suspicions; the court held instead that they did not disclose claims that could proceed in these proceedings.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review