A businessman can continue with his action for damages against members of a law firm over the manner in which it defended him in legal proceedings brought over a leak from a petrol station, the High Court has ruled.
Patrick McDonagh leased the Singland Service Station on the Dublin Road from McMullan Brothers when, during January 2003, an underground leakage of petrol occurred.
The petrol station had to shut for safety reasons and a restaurant and supermarket on the site were also put out of business.
McMullans sued Mr McDonagh. In 2007, the High Court determined liability for damage caused by the leak should be 60 per cent against McDonagh and 40 per cent against McMullans.
Mr McDonagh appealed, McMullans cross-appealed, and in 2015 the Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision.
During the period of the appeal process, Mr McDonagh expressed dissatisfaction, in 2011, with the manner in which the original High Court proceedings had been conducted by his lawyers, Sweeney McGann Solicitors, Limerick.
The firm totally rejected his allegations.
He instructed new solicitors who then brought a case on his behalf against Sweeney McGann and its partners, Geraróid McGann, Jane M O’Connor, Theresa O’Donoghue, Shane M. O’Neill and James David Sweeney.
A pre-action letter was served on them but, due to a delay in getting an expert report for the McDonagh side, an application was made to renew the summons in 2015. This was granted by the Master of the High Court, who oversees cases on their way to trial.
The Sweeney McGann defendants then applied to have set aside the master’s order, arguing more than eight years had passed after the 2007 High Court decision before the case against it was instituted.
Rejecting Sweeney McGann’s application, Ms Justice Marie Baker said Mr McDonagh was justified in awaiting the result of the Supreme Court appeal before deciding whether to commence litigation against his former solicitors. She also considered he acted with expedition after the Supreme Court delivered its decision and after the expert report was at hand.
The defendants did not argue they had suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay, she added.
Sufficient grounds existed for the master to renew the summons and she was refusing to set it aside, the judge said.
