Coleman -v- O'Neill & Ors [2012] IEHC 112 (08 March 2012)

Coleman -v- O'Neill & Ors [2012] IEHC 112 (08 March 2012)

The plaintiff's pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendant directors, no particulars of fraud or breach of duty were pleaded, and the plaintiff was personally bound by the undertakings given by his firm. The claim was bound to fail and constituted an abuse of process.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 112
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Daniel Coleman; Defendant/applicant: Finn O'Neill; Defendant/applicant: John Hyland; Defendant/applicant: Tom Tracey; Defendant/applicant: Kay Tracey; Defendant/applicant: Maeve Moran; Defendant/applicant: John Bradley; Defendant/applicant: Anne O'Malley; Defendant/applicant: Eleanor Mannion; Defendant/applicant: Andrew Daffey; Defendant/applicant: Kevin Tierney; Defendant/applicant: Patrick Lydon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Pleadings/preliminary Motion
Outcome
Plaintiff's proceedings struck out and dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Undertakings, Fiduciary Duties of Directors, Abuse of Process, Striking Out Pleadings, Fraud Allegations
Professional Negligence Banking and Finance Law Company Law Solicitor's Undertakings Fiduciary Duties of Directors Abuse of Process Striking Out Pleadings Fraud Allegations

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Coleman

Plaintiff/respondent

Finn O'Neill

Defendant/applicant

John Hyland

Defendant/applicant

Tom Tracey

Defendant/applicant

Kay Tracey

Defendant/applicant

Maeve Moran

Defendant/applicant

John Bradley

Defendant/applicant

Anne O'Malley

Defendant/applicant

Eleanor Mannion

Defendant/applicant

Andrew Daffey

Defendant/applicant

Kevin Tierney

Defendant/applicant

Patrick Lydon

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Pleadings/preliminary Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendant directors
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim constitutes an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the directors owed a duty of care or fiduciary duty to the plaintiff in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendant directors, no particulars of fraud or breach of duty were pleaded, and the plaintiff was personally bound by the undertakings given by his firm. The claim was bound to fail and constituted an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's proceedings struck out and dismissed

Orders

  • Order striking out the plaintiff's proceedings pursuant to Order 19, Rule 28 for disclosing no cause of action
  • Order dismissing the plaintiff's claim as an abuse of process under the court's inherent jurisdiction