The Court of Appeal dismissed Majella Rippington’s appeal against orders striking out her claims against five defendants, but removed restrictions that had barred her from taking further proceedings against two of them without permission.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice MacGrath on 30 March 2021, concerned claims arising from a dispute over the estate of Ms Rippington’s late sister, Celine Murphy. The court upheld the High Court’s decision to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process, frivolous and vexatious, and disclosing no cause of action.
Ms Rippington’s 2018 claim alleged professional negligence, breach of duties and contract, fraud and other wrongdoing. Its central focus was an order made in July 2012 by Mr Justice O’Neill, which gave solicitor Anne Stephenson liberty to obtain a grant of administration pendente lite to preserve Ms Murphy’s estate and pay its debts while probate litigation was ongoing. Ms Rippington sought, among other remedies, to have that order set aside.
The Court of Appeal said the validity of the 2012 order had been addressed in previous proceedings. It agreed with the High Court that the new case impermissibly sought to challenge final court orders collaterally. It also found no pleaded basis for a legally actionable duty or breach by the defendant solicitors and counsel. The judgment said Ms Rippington had not shown that any proposed amendment could save the proceedings.
The court refused Ms Rippington’s request to adjourn the appeal. It also dismissed her appeal against the High Court’s measured costs orders, which included €6,750 in costs and €500 in outlays for each of the solicitors’ firms, exclusive of VAT.
The High Court had made orders requiring Ms Rippington to obtain the President of the High Court’s prior leave before bringing further proceedings or taking further steps in pending proceedings against the fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth and eleventh defendants. The Court of Appeal upheld those restrictions for the fifth, sixth and eleventh defendants, who had sought them. It removed the orders for the seventh and ninth defendants because they had not sought that relief and Ms Rippington had not been given notice that such restrictions might be made for them.
The appeal court’s provisional view was that the defendants had succeeded and that appeal costs should follow the event. It allowed any party 14 days to seek a short hearing to argue for a different costs order.