BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> McMullen -v- Kennedy [2008] IESC 69 (17 December 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2008/S69.html Cite as: [2008] IESC 69 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Judgment Title: McMullen -v- Kennedy Composition of Court: Fennelly J., Kearns J., Macken J. Judgment by: Fennelly J. Status of Judgment: Approved
Outcome: Allow And Set Aside | ||||||||||||||
THE SUPREME COURT Appeal No. 244/2007 Cross Appeal No. 249/2007 Fennelly J. Kearns J. Macken J. BETWEEN MICHAEL COLIN MCMULLEN Plaintiff/Appellant And GILES J KENNEDY PRACTISING AS GILES J KENNEDY AND COMPANY SOLICITORS Defendant/Respondent JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Fennelly delivered the 17th day of December, 2008.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Murphy J in the High Court refusing the application of the appellant for inspection of documents discovered in the second part of the first schedule of discovery, in respect of which legal professional privilege is claimed. 2. This matter occurs in the context of a long-running saga of litigation involving the plaintiff and a number of other parties including two firms of solicitors and a barrister (since deceased). The history of that litigation can be found in my judgment in McMullen v McGinley [2005] 2 IR 445. Macken J also outlines it in some detail in the judgment she is about to deliver. 3. In the present proceedings the appellant sues a firm of solicitors, Giles J Kennedy & Co (hereinafter “the defendant”). The action, as is explained in the statement of claim, arises out of an action for damages for negligence brought by the appellant against his former solicitors, Kent, Carty & Co. The appellant’s complaint in that action was that he had been led to accept a settlement of earlier litigation on the understanding that, if dissatisfied, he could resume and continue with the action. The settlement provided for “liberty to apply.” When he sought to re-enter the proceedings, it was held that this did not give him “liberty to re-enter.” 4. The plaintiff failed in the action against the solicitors, who had acted for him at the time of the settlement, Kent, Carty & Co. Carroll J held that the solicitors had not been at fault. Rather, they had relied on counsel, the late Mr Noel Clancy. Mr Clancy gave evidence in the action on behalf of Kent, Carty & Co and accepted responsibility. The decision of Carroll J was upheld by this Court on appeal. 5. The plaintiff’s subsequent action against Mr Clancy also failed for reasons given in the judgment of this Court in McMullen v McGinley, cited above. 6. The defendant acted for Kent, Carty & Co in their defence of the negligence claim against them. In the course of his handling of the claim, he made a report in the form of a letter dated 17th May, 1989 to the underwriters. That letter, which ran to seven pages, contained a paragraph which is the essence of the plaintiff’s claim in the present proceedings. It reads as follows:
8. In his statement of claim in the present action, the appellant refers to that letter and quotes the above paragraph. He goes on to plead that the defendant “never varied the tryst he had obtained from Mr Clancy…” He refers to a statement of counsel for Kent Carty & Co in this Court at the hearing of the appeal in that case that “he doubted if he could have succeeded in resisting the complaint of [the appellant] without the evidence of Mr Clancy.” The statement of claim describes the letter from the defendant as “graphic and disturbing.” The plaintiff seeks:
b. Damages and or punitive Damages for engaging in improper manipulation of Evidence which should not have been given in the manner in which it was or not at all, to the complete detriment of the Plaintiff and the due and apposite resolution of a Civil Claim in Negligence. c. Damages for entering into a conspiracy which as an Officer of the Court and a Practitioner of Law and as an Agent for his Clients’ Underwriters/Insurers, (Admiral Ireland), the Defendant would positively have been fully aware to be a dangerous and manipulative arrangement. d. Damages/costs and expenses incurred as a direct result of the said interference; these to include the Costs of the Plaintiff’s own solicitors who brought the Action against Kent Carty, namely Collins Crowley and Co. together with the Taxed Bills of Costs which the Defendant is presently using as a threat of Bankruptcy as against this Plaintiff. e. Damages for the distress and shame heaped upon this Plaintiff in losing his Action against his former Lawyers, in whom he had placed such trust, the extreme worry of being threatened daily with a Hearing in Bankruptcy by his Defendant with his Bills, which this Defendant was at all times fully aware had been attained fraudulently and with the unfair advantage of the knowledge that as early as May 1989 the compliance of the Plaintiff’s former Counsel, Mr. Clancy, had been achieved with “little chats”, “incentives”, and improper coercion. f. General Damages for the complete disruption of the Plaintiff’s life and well being. 11. By an order of 18th October 2001, the High Court (O’Caoimh J) struck out the appellant’s present claim. By an order of 27th July 2005, this Court allowed the appellant’s appeal against that order. The appellant was allowed to proceed with his claim. 12. On 6th July 2006, the Master made an order directing the defendant to make discovery of the following documents: 1. The Defendant’s litigation file in the proceedings in which he acted for Kent Carty 13. The Defendant’s affidavit of discovery was sworn on 11th October 2006. The second part of the first schedule to the affidavit lists documents 162 to 491 under the description:
15. It should be noted, however, that the letter of 17th May 1989 is expressly admitted on the face of the defence, though its contents are not admitted. Murphy J ordered inspection of that document. The defendant has withdrawn its appeal against that order. Thus, that document is available to the plaintiff insofar as discovery makes it so. 16. By notice of motion dated 9th March 2007, the plaintiff sought full and unimpeded access to all the documents listed in the first part of the second schedule. In his grounding affidavit, referred to the letter of 17th May 1989. He said that it confirmed his “worst fears that pressure and threats had been applied to his counsel ro give evidence at all and indeed the evidence which he had averred.” He continued:
18. Murphy J held that no basis for fraud or illegality or for a claim based on a conspiracy or arrangement had been established. He held that privilege had been waived in respect of the letter of 17th May 1989. Otherwise, he upheld the claim of privilege. Before ruling finally, he inspected three documents which appeared to be connected with the letter of 17th May. He found no evidence of undue influence, improper incentives and/or coercion to induce the plaintiff’s counsel to collaborate or undertake to give evidence in the action against Kent Carty & Co. 19. The essence of the case for the appellant on this appeal is that he has produced evidence that privilege is being used to hide and cover up unlawful and, as he says “nefarious activities.” Those activities are very clearly specified. He says that Mr Clancy, to his own total surprise, gave evidence against him in the negligence action brought by him against Kent Carty & Co. That evidence defeated his claim. It was procured by the actions of the defendant, who conspired and agreed with Mr Clancy or offered incentives to or brought pressure to bear on Mr Clancy to give that evidence. That is the gist of his action. 20. In support of his application to be allowed to inspect otherwise privileged documents, he relied in essence on the existence of an irreconcilable conflict between the evidence given respectively by Hugh A. Carty and Pamela Madigan in the action brought by the plaintiff against Mr Clancy. It was the plaintiff who called these witnesses. The plaintiff asked Ms Madigan whether she had at any stage spoken or sought to influence the testimony that Mr Clancy was giving. She answered: “At no stage did I speak with Mr Clancy” and that she had had “no contact with Mr Clancy.” Mr Carty was asked whether he was aware of any attempt to get Mr Clancy to give evidence in a particular way that was favourable to his office. He answered:
22. The irreconcilable conflict to which the appellant refers is between that sworn evidence and the contents of the privileged section of the affidavit of discovery. He says that the items as described show that there were at least twenty nine contacts between the defendant or his office on the one hand and Kent Carty & Co on the other. He points very specifically to two items numbered 324 and 325 both dated 28/04/89. No 324 is described as: “Att. Noel Clancy.” No 325 is described as “Att. Pamela Madigan.” It should be noted that 28th April 1989 is the date of the conversation between Mr Kennedy and Mr Clancy, as recorded in the letter of 17th May 1989. That letter does not suggest that Ms Madigan was party to the conversation. 23. At this point, it is important to note that the “irreconcilable conflict” to which the appellant refers is based essentially on a suggestion that the evidence of both Ms Madigan and Mr Carty was false and untruthful. Neither of those persons is party to or on notice of the present application. Hence they have no opportunity to reply to these serious allegations that they gave perjured evidence. Even more pertinent is the fact that neither the Plenary Summons nor the statement of claim in the action allege that either of these persons were party to or privy to the acts alleged against the defendant. Privilege 24. It is not contested, nor could it be, that the documents listed in the first part of the second schedule are the subject of legal professional privilege, for the very reasons given in the description given to them in the affidavit od discovery. The context is somewhat different from the normal situation, where provilege is claimed in respect of documents generated in the subject litigation. Here they came into existence in earlier litigation in which the solicitor, who is now the defendant, acted for former clients. 25. It follows that the privilege belongs to the former clients, not the solicitor. Neither Kent Carty & Co nor any of the partners in that firm are on notice of this application. In my view, the Court should not make any order impinging on the rights of those parties without hearing them. However, I believe that the present appeal may be dismissed on another basis. 26. Finlay C.J. in his judgment in Smurfit Paribas v A.A.B. Export Finance [1990] 1 I.R. 469 at 476 identified the purpose and object of legal professional privilege as being to satisfy “the requirement of the superior interest of the common good in the proper conduct of litigation which justified the immunity of communications from discovery in so far as they were made for the purpose of litigation as being the desirability in that good of the correct and efficient trial of actions by the courts.” 27. The decision of this Court in Fyffes plc v D.C.C. plc and others [2005] 1 IR 59 approved the dictum of Lord Bingham C.J. in Paragon Finance v. Freshfields [1999] 1 WLR 1183, at p. 1188:-
29. In my view, the appellant has not been able to point to any evidence whatsoever in support of such a contention. I need hardly repeat that the content of Mr Kennedy’s letter suggests improper behaviour on his part. The appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to remarks made to that effect by members of this Court at earlier hearings. That misbehaviour appeared to consist, however, in seeking to induce Mr Clancy to persuade his client (the present appellant) to withdraw his claim against Kent Carty & Co by threatening him with the possibility of being joined himself as a party to the action. It does not lend any support to the suggestion made by Mr McMullen on the present appeal that the defendant was party with Ms Madigan and Mr Carty to an attempt to influence Mr Clancy as to the content of the evidence he would give in the action. As I have already stated, the appellant makes no such allegation against either Ms Madigan or Mr Carty in his pleadings. He has given them no notice of his intention of doing so in the course of the present application or of his wish to encroach on the legal professional privilege which is theirs. Nonetheless, the central plank of his argument before this Court on the hearing of the appeal was that there was such conflict between the evidence given by those two persons in the course of the earlier High Court proceedings and the contents of the affidavit of discovery that their evidence was false. 30. In my opinion, the appellant has come nowhere close to establishing that proposition. 31. I would dismiss the appeal. | ||||||||||||||
