Court of Appeal: Case against solicitors firm dismissed as man failed to prove professional negligence

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

The man alleged that his solicitors were professionally negligent and had failed to properly put his case to the Court, however Justice Mahon agreed with the High Court’s finding that the man was merely attempting to re-litigate the personal injury proceedings in which he had been criticised for being a persistent liar.

Personal injury proceedings

In 1996 Patrick Vesey was involved in a road traffic accident, following which he instituted proceedings seeking compensation for personal injury against Bus Éireann, Bus Éireann admitted liability and the matter was heard in the High Court as an assessment of damages for personal injury, loss of earnings, and special damages. Until May 1999; Mr Vesey was represented by Kent Carty Solicitors, and thereafter by Fabian Cadden & Co Solicitors.

In November 2000, the High Court awarded total damages of IR£72,500 with the judge expressing severe criticism of Mr Vesey’s evidence in relation to the extent of his injuries and his work history. In this High Court judgment, Justice Johnson stated that Mr Vesey lied to him, lied to his own doctors, and lied to the defendant’s doctors.

In 2001, Bus Éireann appealed the award of damages to the Supreme Court, where Mr Vesey’s total damages were reduced to €38,360. In the course of the Supreme Court judgment, Justice Hardiman determined that the observations of Justice Johnson which severely criticised Mr Vesey were “fully justified” and were not “unduly harsh”, remarking that “he replaced one untrue account with another equally untrue”.

Professional negligence proceedings

In November 2006 Mr Vesey issued fresh proceedings in the High Court in which he claimed damages for the professional negligence of Kent Carty and Fabian Cadden & Co Solicitors regarding his personal injury action against Bus Éireann, claiming that they failed to:

In the High Court, Justice O’Malley dismissed Mr Vesey’s claims, and stated that it was impossible to avoid the conclusion that Mr Vesey was “attempting, in reality, to re-litigate the issues in the Bus Éireann case and obtain damages from the defendant on the basis that he should have achieved a better result than he did”. Such a course of action was not permissible and was an abuse of the process of the court.

Court of Appeal

In the course of the Court of Appeal proceedings, Mr Vesey introduced additional particulars of negligence including that Fabian Cadden caused the trial judge to form the incorrect conclusion that Mr Vesey had lied to doctors, and failed to carry out Mr Vesey’s instructions to appeal the incorrect findings of the trial judge.

Proceedings against Kent Carty Solicitors were discontinued and were not concerned with the appeal.

The allegation of professional negligence against Fabian Cadden was that it failed to properly put Mr Vesey’s case to the High Court.

Mr Vesey maintained in his 2015 High Court proceedings that he had not received any of his award of damages and costs, that he had suffered serious loss and damage, that he had suffered serious loss to his reputation and his good name because of the comments made in the 2000 and 2001 judgments concerning his honesty, and that he suffered serious distress and psychological damage which is on-going and continuing.

Mr Vesey was “seriously critical” of the manner in which his personal injuries action against Bus Éireann was processed on his behalf by Fabian Cadden and by his counsel, all of whom were experienced legal practitioners.

The onus of establishing that Fabian Cadden was professionally negligent in the manner in which Mr Vesey’s personal injury claim processed and how the manner was dealt with in court by his legal representatives, rested with Mr Vesey.

As per Arthur J.S. Hall & Co. v. Symons 3 All E.R. 673, the standard of care required Fabian Cadden to ensure, in as far as possible, that Mr Vesey’s claim be advocated in court, that the appropriate witnesses be called to give evidence, that witnesses called on behalf of Bus Éireann be cross-examined and/or challenged in order to ensure that Mr Vesey’s claim is vindicated as far as possible, and that Mr Vesey’s instructions be complied with.

Conclusion

Justice Mahon found that neither the evidence adduced before the High Court or the submissions made before him supported the contention that any breach of the appropriate professional standard occurred. Furthermore, Mr Vesey led no expert evidence to ground his serious criticisms of Fabian Cadden

Dismissing the appeal, Justice Mahon concluded that Mr Vesey failed to establish that, as a matter of probability, the outcome of his personal injuries action against Bus Éireann was undermined or rendered unsatisfactory because of any professional failure on Fabian Cadden’s part.