The High Court dismissed a barrister’s professional negligence claim against a solicitor and his former practice partner over two Dublin property purchases, finding that she knew the transactions were structured as sub-sales. The court made no order on the defendants’ counterclaim alleging abuse of process.
Mr Justice Birmingham delivered judgment after a 12-day hearing. Anna O’Connor claimed damages including for breach of retainer, negligence and deceit, alleging that Daniel Byrne and Tara Byrne had failed in their professional duties in connection with purchases at 4 Annesley Bridge and 25 New Cabra Road.
A central allegation was that she had not been told Mr Byrne had first contracted to buy both properties and was selling them on to her. The judge rejected that allegation. He said letters, contracts and deeds made the sub-sale arrangements clear, and found that Ms O’Connor knew Mr Byrne’s role in each transaction.
The judge also rejected her claim that she had paid too much for New Cabra Road by the standards of the property market at the time. The evidence did not establish the market value she alleged, he said. He concluded that she had entered the property market at the wrong time, rather than overpaying by the standards of mid-2007.
The judgment criticised the business model in which Mr Byrne’s practice acted for purchasers buying property from him, describing it as undesirable because it institutionalised potential conflicts of interest. But the judge found Ms O’Connor understood Mr Byrne’s dual role and was content with it. He also said the case was not about whether the conveyancing met the highest standards; the criticisms identified had not caused practical difficulties.
The judge found no agreement for Mr Byrne to provide project management services for the properties. He also rejected an allegation that Ms O’Connor and her son deliberately set out to induce a witness to give false evidence. However, he found it inappropriate for them to discuss proposed testimony with a potential witness and offer him payments, describing her conduct as “at best very unwise”.
The defendants’ counterclaim alleged that the proceedings were brought for improper purposes, including to cover losses from property investments. The judge found the proceedings fell short of establishing an abuse of process, and further short of the kind of abuse that could give rise to a separate cause of action. He made no order on the counterclaim and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.