The Supreme Court has allowed Elizabeth Murphy’s appeal against the dismissal of her professional negligence claim against Beauchamps Solicitors and Joseph Bowe, set aside the High Court order and remitted the case to the High Court.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s decision to dismiss the claim at the close of Ms Murphy’s evidence, before the solicitors had presented their evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court judge should have assessed whether there was evidence from which negligence could be inferred, taking Ms Murphy’s case at its highest. It said the judge had instead weighed her case against assertions about evidence the solicitors might later give.
Ms Murphy’s claim related to transactions involving her home at 58 Rathdrum Road. The High Court record described a 2002 transfer of the property into joint names with her grandson, followed by a €100,000 loan and, later, the sale of the house for €271,000. Ms Murphy claimed she did not receive the balance of the loan or her share of the sale proceeds. The High Court had refused to dismiss her claims against her son and grandson, but dismissed the claim against the solicitors and awarded them costs.
In overturning that decision, the Supreme Court said the High Court judge had not considered a psychologist’s report that was read as evidence and left unchallenged by cross-examination. The report was prima facie evidence that Ms Murphy was vulnerable at the time of the transactions. The Supreme Court also found that the judge had not properly considered evidence in the solicitors’ client file concerning the sale proceeds, including a 2003 letter referring to a loan to the son to be repaid from those proceeds. It said the judge had inferred the solicitors’ intention in issuing a joint cheque without taking Ms Murphy’s case at its highest.
The judgment did not determine whether the solicitors were negligent. It held that the case should not have been dismissed at that stage and returned it to the High Court for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court also struck out a separate motion by the solicitors. They had sought to have Ms Murphy’s appeal dismissed after she settled her claims against her son and grandson, arguing that the settlement affected her remaining claim under the Civil Liability Act 1961. The Court said the issue was more appropriately addressed in the High Court in the first instance. It made no order for costs on that motion.