The High Court struck out a second set of proceedings brought by Daniel McAteer against three solicitors practising as Adams Corporate, finding that the case repeated claims already being pursued or decided in earlier litigation and was an abuse of process.
Mr Justice Noonan delivered judgment on 26 April 2017. The motion to strike out was brought by the defendants. The court also described the proceedings as frivolous and vexatious, and said they were significantly oppressive to the defendants. The order applied to the 2015 proceedings; the judgment states that the related 2009 proceedings were ongoing.
The 2015 case was issued on 7 October 2015, naming McAteer as the sole plaintiff. Its claim was substantially identical to the 2009 case, although it omitted claims for conspiracy and an injunction and changed some of the amounts sought. McAteer’s statement of claim purported to add Ballinorig Developments Ltd and Ballinorig Properties Ltd as co-plaintiffs, but no court application had been made to join them. The judge held that this purported addition had no legal effect.
The claims arose from alleged solicitor work on agreements for two companies intended to develop land at Tralee, Co. Kerry, for a medical centre. McAteer alleged that he was not appointed a director or allocated shares, and that the companies’ assets were transferred to other companies controlled by the defendants. These were allegations described in the judgment’s account of the earlier proceedings, not new findings in this motion.
The Court of Appeal had already struck out substantial parts of the 2009 claim, including claims for losses allegedly suffered by the companies. In the 2015 statement of claim, McAteer sought €18 million concerning shares, €68 million for development profits said to have been lost by the companies, and €50,000 for professional fees. The High Court held that he could not use a fresh action to relitigate matters already determined, or to pursue claims that belonged to the companies. It also found that the 2015 proceedings repeated the substance of the 2009 case and that any legitimate cause of action was statute barred.
The judgment records that the defendants’ motion was granted and the 2015 proceedings were struck out. It does not strike out the 2009 proceedings.