Fox v. O'Carroll [1999] IEHC 4 (29th April, 1999)

Fox v. O'Carroll [1999] IEHC 4 (29th April, 1999)

The defendant was not negligent in failing to sue Tormey & Co. because the facts did not disclose a glaringly obvious case, and he acted prudently by repeatedly seeking and following specialist counsel's advice, which consistently advised there was no actionable claim. There was no breach of specific instructions from the plaintiff to sue contrary to counsel's advice.

Citation
[1999] IEHC 4
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Fox; Defendants: Michael A O'Carroll and Desmond P Hogan carrying on practice under the style and title of Walker O'Carroll & Hogan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim Against Solicitor / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty, Reliance on Counsel's Advice, Statute of Limitations, Deceit, Wrongful Attestation
Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice Solicitor's Duty Reliance on Counsel's Advice Statute of Limitations Deceit Wrongful Attestation

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Fox

Plaintiff

Michael A O'Carroll and Desmond P Hogan carrying on practice under the style and title of Walker O'Carroll & Hogan

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Negligence Claim Against Solicitor / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant solicitor negligent in failing to sue Tormey & Co. within the statutory period despite advice from counsel?
  2. 2 Did the defendant breach specific instructions from the plaintiff to sue Tormey & Co.?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was not negligent in failing to sue Tormey & Co. because the facts did not disclose a glaringly obvious case, and he acted prudently by repeatedly seeking and following specialist counsel's advice, which consistently advised there was no actionable claim. There was no breach of specific instructions from the plaintiff to sue contrary to counsel's advice.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed