The Court of Appeal has dismissed playwright Bisi Adigun’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim for damages against solicitors Linda McEvoy and Patrick Moran, practising as Moran Solicitors. The court concluded that the solicitor had acted for Arambe Productions, the company Mr Adigun directed, and not for him personally. It also found that the appeal failed on the evidence and the other grounds advanced.
The case arose from a dispute over an adaptation of The Playboy of the Western World, co-written by Mr Adigun and Roddy Doyle. Arambe had an exclusive licence to produce the play, but its agreement with the Abbey Theatre required the authors’ prior written consent for rights to be transferred. The High Court found that Mr Doyle’s consent had not been obtained for the Abbey agreement and that Mr Adigun had not initially disclosed the authors’ contract to Ms McEvoy.
Ms McEvoy sent Arambe a letter setting out the firm’s terms of business and requesting a €1,200 retainer fee plus VAT. Mr Adigun accepted those terms on the company’s behalf after informing its board. The Court of Appeal said the evidence supported the trial judge’s finding that Arambe, rather than Mr Adigun, was the client. It noted that the solicitor should have made that distinction clear to him.
Mr Adigun argued that Ms McEvoy had failed to write letters he said she had agreed to send, and that this caused personal losses. The trial judge found that the relationship between Mr Adigun and Mr Doyle had already been irreparably damaged and that the proposed letters would not have changed Mr Doyle’s position. The Court of Appeal held that those findings were supported by evidence heard over a 16-day trial and would not be displaced on appeal.
The appeal also alleged bias, procedural errors and misconduct. The Court of Appeal rejected those grounds, noting that the trial judge had disclosed his friendship with a witness before the hearing and that Mr Adigun had not objected at the time. It also upheld the decision to exclude an unproved counsel’s opinion and to strike allegations about a person who was not a party to the proceedings.
The appeal court disagreed with the High Court’s view that the Civil Liability Act and the rule in Henderson v Henderson barred the claim. It said those grounds were not available in the circumstances, including because the earlier proceedings had involved other parties. But the court held that correcting those points did not assist Mr Adigun: it dismissed the appeal, leaving the dismissal of his claim in place.