The High Court has dismissed an auctioneer’s application to set aside a third-party notice in a negligence case brought by Carla Coleman against solicitor Anthony M Joyce, practising as Anthony Joyce & Company Solicitors.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin ruled on 16 February 2023 that Clement Herron had not acted as soon as reasonably possible in seeking to set aside the notice. The judge also found that the solicitor had acted with reasonable expedition in applying to bring Mr Herron into the proceedings. The ruling concerns this procedural dispute only; it does not decide the merits of Ms Coleman’s claim or whether any party is liable.
Ms Coleman alleges that she paid €90,000 in connection with a property purchase, while the sale price later stated to the solicitor was €40,000. Her claim against the solicitor includes alleged negligence and breach of duty. The solicitor denies liability and disputes that she suffered the claimed loss. In his defence, he alleged that Mr Herron arranged the purchase and works to the property, and that Mr Herron’s acts or omissions contributed to any loss. These remain contested positions, not findings in this ruling.
Mr Herron’s motion sought to set aside the notice authorised by an order of 30 June 2020. The solicitor’s application to issue and serve it had been made on 24 February 2020, after correspondence seeking information, asking Ms Coleman to join Mr Herron as a co-defendant, and requesting an indemnity from him. Justice Heslin treated the solicitor’s 12-week period between the deadline under the rules and the joinder application as reasonable in the circumstances, given the steps taken to clarify the claim and explore alternatives.
The notice was served on 27 July 2020, six days beyond the three-week period specified in the June order. The judge attributed that short delay to pandemic-era restrictions and postal processing, extended time, and deemed service good.
Mr Herron’s motion to set aside the notice was issued on 25 January 2021, about six months after service. The judge found that the explanation given did not account for the delay and that Mr Herron had not met his obligation to act with reasonable expedition. He also concluded that the parties’ rights and liabilities concerning the transaction should be determined in one set of proceedings.
The court directed the parties to correspond about the form of order, including costs. Justice Heslin’s preliminary view was that the usual rule—costs follow the event—should apply, but the judgment did not settle costs; if the parties could not agree, short written submissions were to be filed within 14 days.