Tighe v Burke t/a McCartan & Burke Solicitors [2012] IESC 31 (15 May 2012)

Tighe v Burke t/a McCartan & Burke Solicitors [2012] IESC 31 (15 May 2012)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings of fact—rejecting all allegations of negligence and causation against Mr. Burke—were supported by the evidence and could not be disturbed on appeal. The appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the High Court's reasoning or findings, and the alleged defaults did not cause the collapse of the underlying judicial review case.

Citation
[2012] IESC 31
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Dermot Tighe; Defendant/respondent: Joseph Burke, Trading as McCartan & Burke Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Appeals on Findings of Fact, Judicial Review Procedure, Default Planning Permission
Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice Civil Procedure Solicitor's Duty of Care Appeals on Findings of Fact Judicial Review Procedure Default Planning Permission

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dermot Tighe

Plaintiff/appellant

Joseph Burke, Trading as McCartan & Burke Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitor (Mr. Burke) was negligent in his conduct of judicial review proceedings for the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether alleged defaults by the solicitor caused the collapse of the plaintiff's case
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's findings of fact could be overturned on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings of fact—rejecting all allegations of negligence and causation against Mr. Burke—were supported by the evidence and could not be disturbed on appeal. The appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the High Court's reasoning or findings, and the alleged defaults did not cause the collapse of the underlying judicial review case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court order affirmed