The High Court has refused an application to strike out a claim by electrician Gregory Finnegan that he became beneficially entitled to a house in Glaslough, Co Monaghan, after its former owner promised it to him.
Mr Justice William McKechnie delivered the judgment on 20 April 2007. The court considered only the defendants’ motion to dismiss the proceedings, not whether Mr Finnegan is entitled to the property.
The defendants, Graham Richards and Paraic Madigan, were sued as attorneys for Barbara Allen, who was entitled to seek administration of the estate of Emma Teresa Clancy. They argued that the proceedings were invalid because they were issued before Letters of Administration had been granted. They also said the pleaded facts disclosed no sustainable cause of action and that the claim was an abuse of process.
Mr Finnegan alleges that he provided services and spent money for Ms Clancy over many years. His statement of claim says that in 1989 she told him she would give him the house, and that in April 2004 she said it was his and gave him the keys and title deeds. It further alleges that, after the earlier promise, he continued providing services and spending money without seeking or receiving repayment. These are allegations in the pleadings, not findings made after a trial.
The plenary summons was issued on 9 May 2006, before the grant issued on 26 June. The judge considered the law on proceedings brought against representatives before a grant and declined to apply the rule advanced by the defendants to strike out this case. He also found that the defendants’ solicitors had confirmed authority to accept service and expressed confidence that the grant would issue soon. In the circumstances, the judge concluded that the defendants were estopped from relying on the timing point.
On the separate challenge to the substance of the claim, the judge held that the pleadings disclosed a prima facie cause of action and that the case was not suitable for dismissal at this early stage. No particulars had been exchanged, no defence filed and no discovery obtained. The court therefore dismissed the application on both grounds. The judgment did not determine ownership of the house or the ultimate merits of Mr Finnegan’s claim.