The High Court has dismissed Patrick O’Reilly’s professional negligence claim against the solicitors who acted for him in a dispute over a fish farm partnership, finding that they acted competently and gave appropriate advice.
Mr Justice White delivered judgment on 1 July 2016. He said the claim could have been dismissed because Mr O’Reilly had not given an adequate reason for waiting 19 years after the defence was filed before taking further steps. The court nevertheless considered the merits and dismissed the claim.
The negligence action began in 1993. Mr O’Reilly alleged that the defendants, practising as Coakley Moloney Solicitors, had been negligent in their handling of a dispute with Patrick Daly. The original statement of claim was missing and unavailable to the court. The judge allowed the action to proceed without it and considered an affidavit from Mr O’Reilly as part of his direct evidence.
The dispute arose from an agreement between Mr O’Reilly and Mr Daly to promote a fish farm. The judge found that Mr O’Reilly had instructed solicitor Patrick Dorgan about the proposed partnership, including its operation through a limited company. He also found that Mr Dorgan made changes to a draft agreement on Mr O’Reilly’s instructions and took care to keep the family home outside the partnership arrangement.
Mr Daly later brought Circuit Court proceedings. The judge accepted Mr Dorgan’s evidence that he had specific authority to accept service and enter an appearance for Mr O’Reilly. The solicitors sought instructions to defend the case, and the judge found the correspondence supported Mr Dorgan’s account that it was difficult to obtain them.
On 9 January 1990, Mr Dorgan visited Mr O’Reilly and told him about a second motion for judgment in default of defence. The judge found that judgment had not been entered and that a defence was ready to be filed, though there was concern the Circuit Court might not allow it at that stage. He accepted that Mr Dorgan advised Mr O’Reilly to settle and found that Mr O’Reilly voluntarily agreed to compromise the proceedings for €20,000, with costs of £1,500.
The judge said Mr O’Reilly’s family home was already in jeopardy when he signed the compromise. He concluded that its eventual loss was not due to professional negligence by the defendants. The court also noted that the defendants’ files had been destroyed during an office move in 2007 or 2008, leaving Mr Dorgan with only a general recollection of the matter.