The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by L. K. Shields, a firm of solicitors, and upheld a High Court judgment that it was liable for professional negligence over the registration of property bought by Rosbeg Partners Limited in 1994.
The appeal concerned whether the firm’s failure to complete registration caused Rosbeg to lose a €10 million sale opportunity in 2007, and whether Rosbeg later failed to limit its losses by rejecting lower offers. The Court of Appeal did not retry those factual disputes. It held that the High Court judge’s conclusions rested on credible evidence and properly drawn inferences, which the appeal court should not overturn.
The property was Unit 520, Western Industrial Estate, Naas Road. The Court of Appeal judgment said the sale to Rosbeg included registered and unregistered land, but the necessary documents were not lodged to complete registration. Boundary and mapping issues remained unresolved, and the omission came to light in 2007. The judgment records that negligence was not disputed on appeal.
In September 2007, Pino Harris offered €10 million, subject to contract and confirmation of a total site area of 2.56 acres. The High Court judge accepted evidence that Rosbeg had decided at a meeting on 24 September to accept the offer and was taking steps to progress the transaction. The Court of Appeal noted that the offer was never formally accepted before its extended deadline of 5 October. It nevertheless upheld the finding that the title problem prevented Rosbeg from following through on its decision and that the offer later lapsed.
The appeal court also upheld the High Court’s rejection of the solicitors’ argument that Rosbeg had failed to mitigate its loss. Harris made later verbal offers of €8 million in February 2008 and €6 million in August. Rosbeg did not accept either, and negotiations ended after a further approach at €8.5 million. The High Court had found Rosbeg’s conduct reasonable in the circumstances, including the unresolved title defects and the rapidly declining property market. The Court of Appeal said there was insufficient evidence to establish that a deal would have proceeded at either lower figure.
The ruling leaves the High Court judgment in place. The Court of Appeal noted that the question of damages had been dealt with in the High Court; it did not set out a new damages assessment in its conclusion.