Burns v John J. Quinn and Co. LLP. and Ors (Approved) [2026] IEHC 77 (13 February 2026)

Burns v John J. Quinn and Co. LLP. and Ors (Approved) [2026] IEHC 77 (13 February 2026)

The plaintiff's claim is bound to fail as the processing of his data by the solicitors was lawful, necessary, and proportionate under GDPR for the purposes of conveyancing and compliance with statutory obligations. The proceedings are an abuse of process with an improper collateral purpose and cannot be saved by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] IEHC 77
Parties
Plaintiff: Gerry Burns; Defendant: John J. Quinn & Co. LLP; Defendant: Pauline Brady; Defendant: Monika Osagie
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Application to Dismiss Claim (order 19 Rule 28(1) Rsc) and Related Motions / High Court Judgment on Application to Strike Out and Ancillary Reliefs
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, GDPR Compliance, Conveyancing, Solicitors' Duties
Civil Procedure Data Protection Property Law Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process GDPR Compliance Conveyancing Solicitors' Duties

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerry Burns

Plaintiff

John J. Quinn & Co. LLP

Defendant

Pauline Brady

Defendant

Monika Osagie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Dismiss Claim (order 19 Rule 28(1) Rsc) and Related Motions / High Court Judgment on Application to Strike Out and Ancillary Reliefs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim discloses a reasonable cause of action under GDPR and property law
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process or have an improper collateral purpose
  3. 3 Whether the processing of the plaintiff's data by the solicitors was lawful under GDPR

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim is bound to fail as the processing of his data by the solicitors was lawful, necessary, and proportionate under GDPR for the purposes of conveyancing and compliance with statutory obligations. The proceedings are an abuse of process with an improper collateral purpose and cannot be saved by amendment.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • Proceedings struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.
  • Plaintiff provisionally ordered to pay defendants' costs, subject to application within seven days for a hearing on costs.