McMullen -v- McGinley [2005] IESC 10 (15 March 2005)

McMullen -v- McGinley [2005] IESC 10 (15 March 2005)

The plaintiff's claims fail because privilege of confidentiality was waived by bringing the negligence action, witness immunity applies, no evidence supports conspiracy or breach of fiduciary duty, the Code of Conduct is not justiciable, and any negligence claim is statute-barred.

Citation
[2005] IESC 10
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Michael Colin Geoffrey McMullen; Defendant/respondent: Edward McGinley (representing the Estate of Noel Clancy)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidentiality, Fiduciary Duty, Witness Immunity, Statute of Limitations, Code of Conduct for Barristers, Conspiracy Allegations
Professional Negligence Legal Ethics Contract Law Tort Law Breach of Confidentiality Fiduciary Duty Witness Immunity Statute of Limitations +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Colin Geoffrey McMullen

Plaintiff/appellant

Edward McGinley (representing the Estate of Noel Clancy)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Clancy breached confidentiality and fiduciary duty by giving evidence against his former client
  2. 2 Whether Mr Clancy's evidence was false, fraudulent, or perjured
  3. 3 Whether there was a conspiracy between Mr Clancy and Kent Carty & Co to influence the outcome of the negligence action

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claims fail because privilege of confidentiality was waived by bringing the negligence action, witness immunity applies, no evidence supports conspiracy or breach of fiduciary duty, the Code of Conduct is not justiciable, and any negligence claim is statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • No order for costs
  • Kennedy letter not admitted as evidence