Richardson and Another v Madden
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Quirke J |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] IEHC 162 |
| Docket Number | [No. 4465P/1999] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 27 May 2005 |
[2005] IEHC 162
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
BETWEEN
AND
SOLICITORS (AMDT) ACT 1994 S68
LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND A GUIDE TO PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS IN IRELAND 2ED 2002
ROCHE v PEILOW 1985 IR 232
HEGARTY v O'LOUGHRAN & EDWARDS 1990 1 IR 148 1990 ILRM 403
O'CARROLL v DIAMOND (T/A PAUL F DIAMOND & CO SOLICITORS) 2005 4 IR 41 2005 2 ILRM 219 2005/47/9774 2005 IESC 21
DAMAGES:
Award;
NEGLIGENCE:
Professional negligence
Breach of contract - Damage to reputation - Whether defendant agreed to indemnify plaintiffs in respect of costs arising from judicial review proceedings - Separate proceedings against solicitors - Whether concurrent wrongdoers - Whether damages could be awarded in both proceedings - Damages awarded against defendants in both proceedings (1999/2816P &1999/4465P - Quirke J - 27/5/2005) [2005] IEHC 162
Richardson v Madden; Richardson v O'Donovan
Facts: The plaintiffs along with others, including Mr. Madden unsuccessfully brought judicial review proceedings challenging a decision of the Independent Radio and Television Commission (IRTC) rejecting their separate applications for a licence to provide a radio service in Limerick. The IRTC was awarded the costs of those proceedings. Mr. Richardson claimed that prior to commencing judicial review proceedings Mr. Madden assured him that he would take responsibility for all of the costs associated with the legal proceedings. Subsequently, the IRTC registered judgment against the plaintiffs in the amount of IR£66,078.43 and some time later it issued bankruptcy petitions against the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs sought damages for breach of agreement by Mr. Madden and damages for the loss, damage, inconvenience, distress and substantial damage to their reputations caused by that breach of agreement. The plaintiffs also sought damages for the loss sustained by reason of the negligence of Dermot O’Donovan and Partners, who were the solicitors acting for the applicants in the judicial review proceedings.
Held by Quirke J. in favour of the plaintiffs:
1. That Mr. Madden expressly agreed that he would indemnify the plaintiffs in respect of all of the costs of and incidental to the proposed challenge by way of judicial review of the decision of the IRTC. However, Mr. Madden failed and refused to discharge his obligations on foot of that agreement. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages from Mr. Madden by way of compensation for his breach of contract.
2. That Mr. Hogan, on behalf of Dermot O’Donovan & Partners, was negligent and in breach of his duty to Mrs. Richardson by failing to offer her any advice at any stage of any aspect of the proceedings which he was conducting on her behalf and accordingly she was entitled to recover damages. Mr. Hogan was also negligent, in breach of his duty to and in breach of his contract with Mr. Richardson and he was entitled to recover damages.
Reporter: L.O’S.
The plaintiffs, Michael Richardson and Wendi Ferris Richardson, claim damages from Gerard Madden for breach of contract. They claim damages also from their former solicitors Messrs Dermot G. O'Donovan and Partners for negligence and breach of duty arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances. They have instituted separate proceedings in the High Court in respect of each claim.
By order of the High Court (Johnson J.) dated 24th March, 2003, it was directed (a), that the two separate actions should be listed for hearing on the same date and tried by the same judge and (b), that the plaintiffs' claim against Gerard Madden should be tried first.
When the proceedings came before this court on 5th April, 2005, it was decided by the Court, without objection from the parties, that, since the evidence to be adduced in each case was common to both actions, the court should, for convenience, hear the evidence in full before deciding each case separately.
It has been agreed that the determinations in each case will be made in the order directed by Johnson J. i.e. that the plaintiffs claim against Mr. Madden (Record No. 1999 No. 4465P) will be determined first and the plaintiffs claim against Dermot G. O'Donovan and Partners (Record No. 1999 No. 2816P) will be determined immediately thereafter.
Since the factual background and the findings of fact are common to both sets of proceedings, I have, for convenience, included the determinations in both cases within the same document.
1. The plaintiffs are a married couple who live in Castleconnell in Co. Limerick.
The first named plaintiff Michael Richardson had worked in radio for a number of years and in particular had been the proprietor of a "pirate"
(i.e. unlicensed) radio station in Limerick known as "Big L" between 1978 and 1985.
Thereafter he had worked in other radio stations between 1985 and 1989.
Having worked abroad for some years he returned to Ireland with his wife Wendi Ferris Richardson in 1996 and settled in Limerick.
In November of 1996 Michael Richardson responded to an advertisement from the Independent Radio and Television Commission (hereinafter the IRTC) for"expressions of interest" in applying for a licence to provide a radio service for Limerick City and County.
The"expression of interest" was made on behalf of Michael Richardson, his wife Wendi Ferris Richardson and a mutual friend of theirs called John Franks who then lived, (and still lives), in London.
The proposed radio station was to be called"Big L Radio Limerick".
2. For some time prior to 1996 a company called Radio Limerick One Ltd. was the holder of a licence issued by the IRTC for the provision of radio services in Limerick city and county. Gerard Madden was the principal shareholder, the beneficial owner and the person having control of Radio Limerick One Ltd.
Some time in 1999 the radio licence held by Radio Limerick One Ltd. was terminated by the IRTC. A challenge by the licence holder to that termination undertaken in the High Court by way of judicial review failed in July of 1996. An appeal to the Supreme Court was unsuccessful. However Radio Limerick One Ltd. was permitted to continue broadcasting pending the appointment of a new licensee.
Radio Limerick One Ltd. (and its beneficial owner Mr. Madden) continued to benefit from the advertising and other revenue from the radio station during the interim period.
3. The IRTC received nine formal applications in response to an advertisement published in February, 1997, which sought formal applications for a licence to provide a radio service in Limerick.
The applicants included (a), the plaintiffs and Mr John Franks, who wished to provide a radio station known as"Big L Radio Limerick" (b), a company called Radio Limerick 1995 Ltd. which was partly owned by Gerard Madden (c), a company called Maigueside Communications Ltd. (hereafter Maigueside) in which a Mr Pat Fitzgerald had a beneficial interest and (d), a consortium headed by a Mr Tom Nolan.
4. On 21st March, 1997, the IRTC wrote to five of the nine applicants advising that their applications had been unsuccessful and that the IRTC intended to invite the remaining four applicants to make oral submissions to the IRTC in support of their applications. The plaintiffs, Maigueside and the companies controlled by Messrs Madden and Nolan were among the five unsuccessful applicants for a licence.
5. In late March, 1997, Michael Richardson received a telephone call from Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald invited Michael Richardson to attend a meeting of the failed applicants to discuss the possibility of mounting a challenge by way of judicial review to the decision of the IRTC to refuse the applications of five of the applicants.
Mr. Richardson showed a guarded interest. He agreed to attend a meeting with some of the other failed applicants for the purpose of discussion. A meeting was arranged and was held in the Two Mile Inn Hotel in Limerick.
It is likely that it was held on 24th March, 1997. In addition to Gerard Madden and Michael Richardson it was attended by Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald, Messrs Bertie Wall and John Riordan (from Maigueside Communications Ltd), and by Mr. Tom Nolan.
In the course of discussion Michael Richardson stated clearly that he was not prepared to be responsible for any costs associated with any proposed proceedings. After further discussion those attending the meeting decided to consult Messrs. Dermot G. O'Donovan and Partners Solicitors for the purposes of obtaining legal advice as to the prospects of mounting a successful challenge to the decision of the IRTC.
6. After the meeting in the Two Mile Inn, Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald telephoned Messrs Dermot G. O'Donovan and Partners. He spoke to Mr. Michael Hogan. Subsequently Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. John Riordan attended Mr. Hogan's office in Henry St. in Limerick.
Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Riordan advised Mr. Hogan that they were seeking advice as to the prospects of mounting a successful challenge to the decision of the IRTC. On the afternoon of the 24th March, 1997, Mr. Hogan met with Mr. Pat Fitzgerald, Mr. John Riordan and Mr. Bertie Wall.
7. On 25th March, 1997, Mr. Hogan spoke on the telephone with Mr. John Riordan and subsequently with Mr. James Gilhooley B.L. in relation to the proposed proceedings.
8. On the 25th March, 1997 a meeting was held in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial