The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick Vesey’s appeal in a professional negligence action against solicitors over their handling of his personal injury claim against Bus Éireann.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Mahon on 26 October 2016, the court concluded that Mr Vesey had not established that any professional failure by the respondent solicitors or his wider legal team undermined or made unsatisfactory the outcome of the injury case. The court was reviewing a High Court judgment by Ms Justice O’Malley, who had dismissed the negligence claim. The appeal was dismissed; the Court of Appeal did not make a separate damages award in this judgment.
Mr Vesey’s injury claim followed a road traffic accident on 9 September 1996. Bus Éireann admitted liability, and the High Court assessed damages in November 2000. It initially awarded IR£72,500. The Supreme Court later reduced the award to €38,360 after an appeal by Bus Éireann. The judgments in those proceedings criticised Mr Vesey’s evidence about his injuries and work history.
Mr Vesey began fresh High Court proceedings in 2006, alleging that the solicitors had failed to prepare and present his injury claim properly, among other alleged failings. He said he had suffered loss, reputational harm and psychological distress. He also maintained that he received none of the damages award. During the negligence proceedings, however, he accepted that the damages had been paid to Bank of Ireland under an undertaking connected with a loan.
The High Court found that the credibility concerns in the injury case stemmed from inconsistencies in Mr Vesey’s own accounts of his health, work and social welfare circumstances. It rejected his claim that the solicitors had failed to advise him about an appeal or follow instructions to bring a cross-appeal, and found no medical evidence supporting his claim of serious psychological injury. The High Court described the negligence action as an attempt to re-litigate the injury case and obtain damages on the basis that it should have had a better result.
On appeal, Mr Vesey repeated complaints about how witnesses had been handled and alleged that the High Court judge appeared biased. The Court of Appeal said the material before it did not justify serious allegations made against a respondent named in the judgment as Mr Caden. It also noted that Mr Vesey had provided no detailed expert evidence to support his professional negligence criticisms. The court held that the evidence and submissions did not establish a breach of the required professional standard and dismissed the appeal.