The High Court dismissed proceedings in which Brendan Loughrey claimed €8 million from solicitor Cathleen Dolan over her administration of the estate of Michael MacCollion, also known as Michael Campbell. The court held that the claim was vexatious and an abuse of process. It also made an order requiring Loughrey to obtain the court’s leave before bringing further proceedings concerning Dolan or the estate.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Laffoy on 30 November 2012, concerned a special summons issued in July that year. Loughrey’s claim referred to “monetary retribution” and alleged negligence, concealment and suppression of bank statements. In an affidavit, he made serious allegations about Dolan’s conduct during the estate administration. The court summarised those allegations but did not make findings that they were true.
Dolan applied to strike out the proceedings, arguing that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. She also sought restrictions on further proceedings. Loughrey filed no affidavit responding to her application. At the hearing, he handed in documents, including a note requesting a jury trial; the judge said his oral submissions could not be understood and considered the written material and affidavits.
The estate had been the subject of earlier High Court proceedings to identify the deceased’s next of kin. In 2007, the court directed that the estate be distributed in equal shares to Loughrey, Leo Campbell and the estate of Michael Campbell. That order had not been appealed. The judge noted that the estate’s current balance was approximately €435,000 before costs.
The 2012 claim replicated a 2010 special summons brought by Loughrey, except that the claimed amount had risen from €5 million to €8 million. The earlier proceedings had been struck out by the Master. The judge concluded that the new claim appeared, in part, to be an attempt to undo the effect of the 2007 order, and that no reasonable person could expect to recover €8 million in the circumstances described.
The court also found procedural defects: a claim for monetary compensation could not be brought by special summons, the allegations were not particularised, service on the Attorney General was inappropriate, and the jury-trial request was misconceived. It dismissed the proceedings and restrained Loughrey from bringing proceedings against Dolan or concerning the estate, and from making applications in specified estate proceedings, without leave of the court.
The order does not prevent Loughrey from pursuing two appeals that were then pending in the Supreme Court concerning earlier applications in the estate proceedings.