Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused a plaintiff's motions to compel acceptance of further and better replies to particulars and to amend a statement of claim in ongoing professional negligence proceedings against former solicitors. The plaintiff, acting as a lay litigant after his solicitor came off record, sought to add entirely new claims that his former solicitors negligently failed to register him and his mother as landowners, and failed to pursue the enforcement of costs in the UK, leading to financial loss. The court held that these new claims were statute barred, unsupported by expert evidence, would cause significant prejudice to the defendants given the passage of time, and were too vague or irrelevant to be admitted at this late stage. The original claim—alleging negligence in failing to enforce taxed costs by timely action against property—remained unaffected. The Court struck out the motion on particulars as moot, since the defendants had now received the replies, and refused leave to amend the pleadings, citing delay, prejudice, abuse of process, and lack of expert support.
professional negligence – amendment of pleadings – statute barred claims – breach of contract – limitation period – well charging order – order for sale – judgment mortgage – registration of land ownership – loss of hostel income – lay litigant – expert report requirement – RSC (Rules of the Superior Courts) – costs of proceedings
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now