Tolan v Brady & anor (Unapproved) [2026] IECA 52 (27 March 2026)

Tolan v Brady & anor (Unapproved) [2026] IECA 52 (27 March 2026)

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court's findings that the appellant was advised of and instructed not to amend the pleadings were supported by credible contemporaneous evidence, and any claim for malicious falsehood would have been doomed to fail on the facts. There was no basis to interfere with the trial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] IECA 52
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Finbar Tolan; Respondents/defendants: John Brady and John Dillon-Leetch both trading under the style and title of Dillon-Leetch and Comerford Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (professional Negligence) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Malicious Falsehood, Loss of Chance, Admissibility of Evidence, Vulnerable Litigant, Amendment of Pleadings
Professional Negligence Tort Law Civil Procedure Solicitor's Duty of Care Malicious Falsehood Loss of Chance Admissibility of Evidence Vulnerable Litigant +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Finbar Tolan

Appellant/plaintiff

John Brady and John Dillon-Leetch both trading under the style and title of Dillon-Leetch and Comerford Solicitors

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (professional Negligence) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents (solicitors) were negligent in failing to amend pleadings to include a claim for malicious falsehood as advised by counsel
  2. 2 Whether the appellant gave instructions not to amend the pleadings
  3. 3 Whether any claim for malicious falsehood against Connacht Gold had a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court's findings that the appellant was advised of and instructed not to amend the pleadings were supported by credible contemporaneous evidence, and any claim for malicious falsehood would have been doomed to fail on the facts. There was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact or his application of the law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed; no order as to costs specified