The High Court has refused an application by Len Roche and Hilary Roche to set aside a third-party notice in a long-running dispute over a public house and dwelling house in Baltinglass, Co Wicklow. The court’s ruling concerned procedure only and did not determine the underlying property or damages claims, or the solicitors’ liability.
The proceedings began in 2001 between Pamela Treacy and her mother, Mary Jo McDonagh, who later died. They concern ownership and title to premises on Edward Street. A 1999 conveyance appeared to transfer the premises and the attached licence and business to McDonagh and Treacy as joint tenants. A separate agreement dated 21 September 1999 provided for McDonagh’s exclusive right to reside in an apartment at the premises, arrangements for sharing business profits, and an agreement not to sever the joint tenancy. A conveyance dated 25 June 2000 later severed that joint tenancy.
Treacy’s claims include that the 2000 conveyance was invalid and that she is entitled to beneficial interests in the premises. In an amended statement of claim delivered in January 2012, she also sought an acre of land on property at Belan Street, Baltinglass, and damages. Those claims remain unresolved.
Dolores Kane, now the defendant as McDonagh’s legal personal representative, issued a third-party notice seeking contribution or indemnity from the Roches, who practised as Roche McGuinn Solicitors. The notice alleges negligence and breach of duty concerning the conveyances, the separate agreement, dealings with Treacy and her legal advisers, and the conduct of the proceedings. These are allegations, not findings.
The Roches sought to have the third-party procedure and the order granting leave to serve the notice set aside. They argued that the notice had not been served as soon as reasonably possible, that its timing was unjust, and that joining them could disrupt the existing case. They also raised concerns about delay and the loss of witnesses, but those alleged prejudice points were not pressed at the hearing.
Justice Laffoy held that Kane could not apply to serve a third-party notice until she became defendant on 30 January 2012. The notice was served on 27 March 2012, which the court held was as soon as reasonably possible. The judge also declared, insofar as necessary, that the application complied with the relevant court rule.
The court rejected the Roches’ other grounds and refused the requested relief. It said nothing in the judgment expressed a view on the substantive issues, and confirmed that the Roches remained entitled to defend the claim against them. A separate application to consolidate these proceedings with another action was adjourned pending this decision.