Smith -v- McCarthy & Ors [2017] IECA 168 (17 May 2017)

Smith -v- McCarthy & Ors [2017] IECA 168 (17 May 2017)

The plaintiff's claims were abusive, constituted impermissible collateral attacks on final judgments, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the Law Society owed no duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances. The appeals against the strike out orders were dismissed.

Citation
[2017] IECA 168
Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: June Smith; Defendant / Respondent: Shane McCarthy; Defendant / Respondent: ACC Loan Management Limited; Defendant / Respondent: Michael Collins & Company, Solicitors; Defendant / Respondent: James Smith; Defendant / Respondent: The Law Society of Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; strike out orders affirmed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Duty of Care of Regulators, Collateral Attack on Judgments, Undue Influence, Solicitor's Undertakings
Civil Procedure Banking Law Professional Negligence Regulatory Law Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Duty of Care of Regulators Collateral Attack on Judgments +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

June Smith

Plaintiff / Appellant

Shane McCarthy

Defendant / Respondent

ACC Loan Management Limited

Defendant / Respondent

Michael Collins & Company, Solicitors

Defendant / Respondent

James Smith

Defendant / Respondent

The Law Society of Ireland

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings against the defendants are abusive or disclose no reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the Law Society of Ireland owes a duty of care to the plaintiff in respect of solicitor undertakings
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff can re-litigate issues already determined in previous proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claims were abusive, constituted impermissible collateral attacks on final judgments, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the Law Society owed no duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances. The appeals against the strike out orders were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; strike out orders affirmed

Orders

  • Proceedings against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants struck out
  • Appeal dismissed as against all relevant defendants