The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to strike out Jane Smith’s proceedings against a receiver, a credit institution and a solicitors’ firm, finding that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
In a judgment delivered on 17 May 2017, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the proceedings were abusive and unsustainable. The appeal concerned an order made by Mr Justice Gilligan in April 2016. The Court of Appeal concluded that he was correct to strike out the case under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The dispute arose from loans advanced by Agricultural Credit Corporation (ACC) to Smith’s parents in 2007. A solicitor, Michael Collins, had written to ACC confirming that contracts for the sale of other land were in place. Smith’s parents later maintained that he had sent the letter without their instructions. Their challenge to ACC’s entitlement to judgment on that issue was rejected by the High Court in February 2012; they did not appeal that order.
ACC later appointed Shane McCarthy as receiver over lands covered by a mortgage. In separate proceedings, the High Court granted a permanent injunction in December 2015 restraining Smith, her parents and others from trespassing on or interfering with the lands. The Court of Appeal said Smith’s claim to an earlier lease over part of the land could have been raised in those proceedings. Bringing it after the injunction amounted to an abusive collateral challenge; the court said issue estoppel or acquiescence also prevented her from raising it.
Smith alleged Collins owed her a duty of care despite never having retained him, and that he and ACC had acted fraudulently. The court held that the recognised exception allowing a solicitor’s duty to extend to an intended will beneficiary did not establish a general duty to protect Smith’s interests in her parents’ dealings with ACC. It also found that the fraud allegations lacked the required particulars. The alleged misrepresentation concerned her parents’ dealings, and the issue had already been raised and rejected in their proceedings.
The judgment further held that Smith could not rely on section 60 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 because she was not the purchaser of the lands. It noted that the High Court had also struck out the claim against Collins as frivolous and vexatious under Order 19, rule 28. The appeal was dismissed and the strike-out remained in place.