The Court of Appeal has allowed Daniel McAteer a further opportunity to amend his claim against three solicitors, while ruling that he cannot pursue losses suffered by two companies as if they were his own.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s decision to lift a stay on the proceedings after Mr McAteer supplied further particulars. The solicitors challenged that decision, arguing that his claim remained inadequately pleaded and should be struck out.
Mr McAteer alleges that the solicitors failed to register his interest in a medical development project in Tralee, County Kerry; acquired shares at an undervalue; disclosed confidential information; and made false statements about him. The defendants denied wrongdoing in their defence, according to the judgment. The Court of Appeal did not determine whether any of these allegations were true.
The court examined Mr McAteer’s amended statement of claim and distinguished claims personal to him from alleged losses belonging to Ballinorrig Properties Ltd and Ballinorrig Developments Ltd. It said claims about his membership of the companies, potential pre-emption rights, and alleged advice to other shareholders about voting him out could be personal to him. It struck out the claim that the solicitors frustrated the project by failing to provide information to a bank, because any resulting loss would have been suffered by the companies.
The court also struck out the claim that the defendants denied Mr McAteer the opportunity to make a substantial profit from the project. It said any project profits would first have belonged to the companies. The plaintiff could not claim those profits or company-incurred architectural and professional fees as his personal losses.
The court noted that the case had evolved over almost five years and that the pleadings still included claims barred by the rule in Foss v Harbottle, which generally prevents a shareholder from suing for wrongs done to a company. It nevertheless granted Mr McAteer leave to amend again, solely to confine the case to claims that were purely personal to him. The court said there should be no further delay and that the parties would be heard on finalising the pleadings and steps to bring the case quickly to a High Court hearing.
The appeal therefore resulted in limits on the claims and a further amendment opportunity; it was not a determination of liability or damages.