The Supreme Court dismissed Edward O’Neill’s appeal against a High Court decision striking out his proceedings against McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors, finding no error in the lower court’s ruling.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Susan Denham on 20 February 2017, concerned a procedural challenge to the claims against the first named defendant. It did not decide whether Statoil (U.K.) Limited owed O’Neill money over the separate dispute that gave rise to his claims.
O’Neill began High Court proceedings in January 2011 against McCann Fitzgerald, Brian Lynch & Associates Solicitors, Orla Cullinan Solicitors trading as O.M. Cullinan & Co. Solicitors, and Timothy Doyle. He sought a range of remedies, including damages for nuisance and breach of constitutional rights. His claims against McCann Fitzgerald included allegations that the firm conspired with the other defendants to deny him money he said Statoil owed him, engaged a private detective whose activities threatened him and his family, and coordinated fraudulent allegations against him.
McCann Fitzgerald applied to strike out the claims against it, arguing that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were bound to fail, and were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The High Court granted the application.
In its account of that ruling, the Supreme Court said the High Court found no reasonable cause of action in the allegation that the firm conspired to deprive O’Neill of money. The High Court had noted that he had not brought proceedings to recover the alleged debt and considered the firm’s correspondence consistent with solicitors defending their client’s interests. It found the private-detective claim clearly unsustainable, citing the dubious nature of the email described and the tenuous link to the firm. It also found nothing to support the allegation that the firm was linked to fraud allegations in the United States.
On appeal, O’Neill repeated those allegations and argued that the firm had failed to disclose information to the High Court. McCann Fitzgerald disputed that the High Court had erred and argued, among other things, that the disclosure argument had not been made there and lacked a clear basis.
The Supreme Court considered the High Court judgment, appeal papers and oral submissions heard on 1 December 2016. It concluded it could find no error in the decision to strike out the claims and dismissed the appeal. The judgment therefore upheld the strike-out of the proceedings against McCann Fitzgerald; it did not determine the separate claims against the other defendants.