The High Court has struck out Majella Rippington’s professional negligence action against her former solicitor, finding that her claims had already been determined or should have been raised in an earlier case.
Mr Justice Barr ruled that the action against Thomas Loomes was barred by res judicata and, for any additional allegations, the rule in Henderson v Henderson. The decision concerned only Loomes’s application to strike out the proceedings on those grounds.
Rippington’s current case, issued in 2015, sought damages for alleged negligence and breach of contract in Loomes’s representation of her in a will dispute concerning her sister’s will. Loomes had represented Rippington, her husband and another sister in that dispute, but withdrew from the case in July 2012. The plaintiffs later lost the will suit, and their appeals were unsuccessful.
In separate proceedings, Loomes sued Rippington for his fees. She counterclaimed, alleging professional negligence in his work on the will suit. In 2020, after hearing oral evidence, Mr Justice Meenan found that the negligence allegation had not been substantiated and ruled in Loomes’s favour. The High Court later measured his fees at €55,641.79, but that measurement was set aside on appeal in 2023, with the bill sent for adjudication by a Legal Costs Adjudicator.
Justice Barr concluded that the negligence and breach of contract issues had been heard and determined in the 2020 proceedings and could not be litigated again. He also held that any further allegations about Loomes’s professional services should have been raised in the earlier counterclaim. He found no special circumstances justifying a later claim.
At the hearing, Rippington also objected that Loomes had previously brought an almost identical strike-out motion, then withdrawn it. Justice Barr upheld that objection as an abuse of process. However, because Loomes had been given leave to amend his notice of motion to add res judicata as a ground, the court allowed that issue to proceed. It was on that permitted ground that the action was struck out.
The court directed the parties to submit brief written submissions on the terms of the final order and costs within four weeks. The case was listed for mention on 21 January 2025. The judgment did not itself settle the final order or costs.