Supreme Court: Man who claimed solicitors’ private detective threatened him and his family loses appeal
Reading time: 5 minutes
A man who claimed, inter alia, that law firm McCann FitzGerald hired a private detective who threatened him and his family, has had his appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court. The man sought damages for nuisance, and alleged that the actions of McCann Fitzgerald and a number of other solicitors firms amounted to a breach of his constitutional rights; however his claim in the High Court was struck out for being frivolous and vexatious. Delivering the judgment of the three judge Court, Chief Justice Susan Denham found no error in the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
About this case:
- Judgment:
Background
The claim brought by Mr Edward O’Neill arose out of a dispute between Mr O’Neill and Statoil (U.K.) Limited concerning an allegation by Mr O’Neill that Statoil authorised him to act as its agent in the negotiation of oil supply contracts, and that Statoil is indebted to him in respect of a considerable amount of money.
McCann FitzGerald was retained by Statoil to acts as its solicitors in this dispute, and consequently sent to Mr O’Neill correspondence on behalf of Statoil, which stated that Statoil believed that his claim was entirely without merit.
In the present proceedings, Mr O’Neill’s complaints were in relation to the actions of McCann FitzGerald when acting as solicitors for Statoil.
High Court
In January 2011, Mr O’Neill instituted High Court proceedings against McCann FitzGerald Solicitors, Brian Lynch & Associates Solicitors, Orla Cullinan Solicitors, and Timothy Doyle by way of plenary summons, claiming a range of remedies, including damages for nuisance, breach of constitutional rights and orders for discovery.
In the High Court, Mr O’Neill submitted that:
In March 2011, McCann FitzGerald brought an application seeking orders, pursuant to the Rules of the Superior Courts and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, striking out Mr O’Neill’s claim on the grounds that the allegations raised by him in his plenary summons and statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were bound to fail; and that they were frivolous and vexatious, and an abuse of process, and ought to be struck out.
In considering whether the proceedings should be struck out, Justice Hedigan referred to the test in Bernadette Ennis v. Colm Butterly 1 I.R. 426, the principles of which were summarised as follows:
In striking out Mr O’Neill’s claim, Justice Hedigan noted that no reasonable cause of action arose out of McCann FitzGerald having acted on the instructions of Statoil to vigorously defend Mr O’Neill’s claim; that solicitors have every right to engage the services of a private investigator, which is common practice in litigation; and that McCann FitzGerald was entitled to communicate with Statoil’s US lawyers, and that there is no basis upon which Mr O’Neill could claim that they should not have engaged with the firm.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
The matters raised by Mr O’Neill on appeal included, that:
Addressing the claim that they had knowledge of information concerning Mr O’Neill that should have been disclosed in the High Court, McCann Fitzgerald submitted that this argument should have been made in the High Court, and that in any event there was no reason to believe that this would have impacted Justice Hedigan’s ruling.
Justice Denham stated that the issue for the Court was whether Justice Hedigan had erred in the High Court by striking out Mr O’Neill’s claim.
Finding no error in the judgement, Justice Denham dismissed the appeal.
Share this article:
Subscribe to our newsletter to not miss articles like this one:
SUBSCRIBE
