High Court: Writer loses negligence case against solicitor instructed in claim against Roddy Doyle and the Abbey Theatre

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Background

Mr Bisi Adigun is a founder of Arambe Productions Limited, (“Arambe”), a theatre company limited by guarantee. In 2005, Mr Roddy Doyle, a well-known writer, worked in collaboration with Mr Adigun on an African adaptation of the Playboy of the Western World by JM Synge for the centenary of the original play.

The relationship between Mr Adigun and Mr Doyle broke down after a contractual dispute regarding the play being produced by the Abbey Theatre. After attempts by Mr Doyle to resolve the dispute in a reasonable and friendly manner were unsuccessful, legal proceedings were commenced and in November 2007, Mr Adigun met with Ms Linda McEvoy of Moran Solicitors to discuss the ongoing dispute with Mr Doyle.

Ms McEvoy proceeded to act on behalf of Arambe in proceedings involving the Abbey Theatre, and Mr Roddy Doyle.

Mr Justice MacEochaidh was satisfied that Ms McEvoy agreed to act for Arambe and not for Mr Adigun personally, and that on that basis the action must fail. However, in view of the amount of evidence and the failure of Ms McEvoy to explain to Mr Adigun in express terms that she was not acting for him personally, Justice MacEochaidh proceeded to decide Mr Adigun’s case as though he were Ms McEvoy’s client and, therefore, entitled to maintain these proceedings against her.

False Statements

The specific context of the present action in negligence arose in December 2007, when Ms McEvoy wrote to Mr Adigun stating that she had sent papers to a barrister on the matter, and had also written letters to Arthur O’Hagan acting on behalf of Mr Doyle, and Arthur Cox acting on behalf of the Abbey.

Admitting that she had not sent such letters, the defendant says that she wrote this letter with the knowledge that Mr Adigun was about to embark on a reasonably lengthy trip away from Ireland. It was her intention to write the letters and to brief counsel while Mr Adigun was away.

Mr Adigun alleged that he suffered professionally due to Ms McEvoy’s failures.

Justice MacEochaigh stated that Ms McEvoy “ought to have” written the aforementioned letters, but notwithstanding this failure, he was satisfied that by 20th December 2007, Ms McEvoy had communicated Mr Adigun’s instructions to the two sets of solicitors by telephone.

No causal link

After hearing evidence from several witnesses subpoenaed on behalf of Mr Adigun, including Mr Roddy Doyle, Justice MacEochaidh took the “firm view… that no different outcome would have been achieved if Ms McEvoy had actually written the letters she unwisely claimed to have written”.

There was no causal link between Ms McEvoy’s failure to write the letters and Mr Adigun’s alleged losses.

Justice MacEochaidh opined that “as a matter of probability, had Ms McEvoy written the letters, the losses Mr Adigun alleged to have suffered from the actions of Mr Doyle and the Abbey would have happened anyway”.

As such, the Court found that Mr Adigun failed to establish that the false statement by Ms McEvoy constituted a breach of the duty of care.

In a scathing High Court judgment, Justice MacEochaidh added that Mr Adigun’s prospect of professional success “turned to dust when Mr Doyle felt betrayed” by Mr Adigun, and due to Mr Adigun’s decision to reject the offer of solutions proposed by Mr Doyle from the outset and throughout.

By the time Mr Adigun and Ms McEvoy met (for the second and last time) on the 12th of February 2008, Mr Adigun had suffered no disadvantage or harm arising from Ms McEvoy’s actions.

Mr Adigun’s decision to reject proposed solutions were “unfortunate, to put it mildly”; but he could not blame Ms McEvoy for that decision, particularly since “she tried to dissuade him from this reckless course of action”.

Justice MacEochaidh added:

“Since that time, Mr Adigun blamed many people for his lack of success professionally. Apart from maintaining these negligence proceedings against Ms McEvoy, he has also accused her of secretly acting for the opposing parties in the underlying dispute, accused the Abbey of racism, accused the mediator of bias, accused a member of the Solicitors Tribunal of bias, and he has, in the course of these proceedings, accused the senior counsel who negotiated the settlement of the proceedings described above of serious professional misconduct. He has unsuccessfully sued Mr Doyle, Mr Sutton, and Mr Fay. He has blamed many people for the failure of his career but he has never blamed himself.

Abuse of process

In response to the allegations made by Mr Adigun that Ms McEvoy acted unlawfully by failing to carry out his instructions – Justice MacEoghaidh was keen to point out that a “solicitor is not required to carry out every instruction given by a client”.

Further, “a solicitor, to state the obvious, is entitled to refuse to act” and no illegality of any kind attaches to the instant circumstances because Ms McEvoy explained why she would not carry out the instruction and, thereafter, the relationship sundered.

Describing Mr Adigun as a man who “very keenly occupied his day in court”, Justice MacEochaidh regarded the attempts to extend the parameters of this case to address grievances with persons other than Ms McEvoy” to have been an abuse of process.

Adding that it was “high time Mr Adigun took personal responsibility for own his actions”, Justice MacEochaidh dismissed Mr Adigun’s claim, concluding that none of the torts or unlawful conduct alleged against Ms McEvoy had been made out.