Keohane v Hynes & another [2014] IESC 66 (20 November 2014)

Keohane v Hynes & another [2014] IESC 66 (20 November 2014)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court judge erred by engaging with and determining disputed facts on affidavit in a summary application, rather than accepting the plaintiff's version for the purpose of the motion. There was a credible basis for the plaintiff's claim in negligence and breach of contract against his solicitors, and it could not be said that the proceedings were bound to fail. The new argument on lack of consequential loss was not properly before the Court and, in any event, would not have availed the respondent. The order dismissing the proceedings as against Grehan and Partners was vacated.

Citation
[2014] IESC 66
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Michael Keohane; First Named Defendant: John Hynes; Second Named Defendant/respondent: Duncan Grehan practising under the style and title of Duncan Grehan and Partners
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Proceedings as Bound to Fail
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction to Dismiss Proceedings, Solicitor's Negligence, Conflict of Interest, Summary Disposal of Claims, Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Inherent Jurisdiction to Dismiss Proceedings Solicitor's Negligence Conflict of Interest Summary Disposal of Claims Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Keohane

Plaintiff/appellant

John Hynes

First Named Defendant

Duncan Grehan practising under the style and title of Duncan Grehan and Partners

Second Named Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Proceedings as Bound to Fail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the proceedings as bound to fail under inherent jurisdiction or Order 19, rule 28
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge impermissibly determined disputed facts on a summary application
  3. 3 Whether there was a credible basis for the plaintiff's claim against his solicitors for negligence, breach of contract, and misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court judge erred by engaging with and determining disputed facts on affidavit in a summary application, rather than accepting the plaintiff's version for the purpose of the motion. There was a credible basis for the plaintiff's claim in negligence and breach of contract against his solicitors, and it could not be said that the proceedings were bound to fail. The new argument on lack of consequential loss was not properly before the Court and, in any event, would not have availed the respondent. The order dismissing the proceedings as against Grehan and Partners was vacated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court dismissing proceedings as against Grehan and Partners vacated
  • Proceedings to continue against Grehan and Partners