High Court Confirms Cooke -v- Cronin On Requirement For Expert Report In Professional Negligence Proceedings

• Published date: 13 July 2020
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Professional Negligence
• Law Firm: Ronan Daly Jermyn
• Author: Mr Padraic Brennan and Thomas McInerney

Thomas Loomes Practising as Thomas Loomes &amp Company Solicitors v Rippington & Ors (Approved) [2020] IEHC 237 (06 March 2020)

A recent decision of the High Court serves as a reminder of the continuing relevance of the Supreme Court decision in Cooke v Cronin [1999] IESC 54, and the fact that the courts have little time for allegations of professional negligence which are unsubstantiated by expert evidence.

Facts:

The application before the High Court concerned an attempt to recover costs arising from probate proceedings in which the plaintiff solicitors had acted for the defendants. In their defence, a counterclaim was made that legal services provided by the plaintiff failed to meet a professional standard. The defendant sought to have the plaintiff's claim struck out and also sought an Order for damages, costs and outlay, on the basis of allegations of professional negligence, which were not supported by expert evidence.

Finding:

Meenan J referred to the well-established rule set out in the Supreme Court decision of Cooke v Cronin which states that the commencement of a professional negligence action, without first ascertaining that reasonable grounds to do so exist, amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. The High Court in Loomes held that this rule applied equally to the present facts where a (counter) claim alleging professional negligence against the plaintiff was made by the defendant seeking to defend an action brought by a professional.

As a reminder of the basis for this rule, Cooke v Cronin involved a medical negligence action in which the plaintiff's expert evidence was provided by the solicitor's General Practitioner, who had met the...