Thomas Loomes Practising as Thomas Loomes & Company Solicitors v Rippington

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Meenan
• Judgment Date: 06 March 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 237
• Docket Number: [2014 No. 336 S]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 06 March 2020

BETWEEN

THOMAS LOOMES PRACTISING AS THOMAS LOOMES AND COMPANY SOLICITORS

PLAINTIFF

AND

MAJELLA RIPPINGTON, SHAUN RIPPINGTON

AND

EDEL BANAHAN

DEFENDANTS

[2020] IEHC 237

Meenan J.

[2014 No. 336 S]

THE HIGH COURT

Professional fees – Professional negligence – Professional services – Plaintiff seeking to recover professional fees from the defendants – Whether the defendants had substantiated their allegation of professional negligence on the part of the plaintiff

Facts: The plaintiff, Thomas Loomes and Company Solicitors, sought to recover professional fees from the defendants, Ms Rippington, Mr Rippington and Ms Banahan, which were incurred when they were instructed to act on behalf of the defendants in proceedings entitled Magella Rippington, Shaun Rippington and Edel Banahan v. Michael Cox and Mary Butler, the High Court (2011 No. 8319 P) (the probate proceedings). The probate proceedings were but one of a number of proceedings initiated by the defendants against numerous individuals, in particular, professional people who may have crossed their path. In the various proceedings, when unsuccessful at first instance, as was almost invariably the case, the decision was appealed, with a similar result. Court proceedings were in addition to various complaints made by Ms Rippington to the Law Society, which were equally unsuccessful. Ultimately, in proceedings entitled Majella Rippington v. Ireland, The Attorney General, the Principal Probate Registry, the Law Society of Ireland & Ors. (2018 No. 4803 P), Simons J made an “Isaac Wunder” Order against Ms Rippington. In these proceedings, Ms Rippington, who appeared in person on behalf of the second and third defendants, sought to resist judgment in favour of the plaintiffs by attempting to relitigate matters long since decided against her and by alleging professional negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Ms Rippington had no expert report to substantiate her claims, despite being advised by the High Court of the requirement for same in the course of a failed adjournment application by her some time before the date for hearing.

Held by Meenan J that, having heard the evidence of Mr Loomes, which he fully accepted, he was satisfied that his firm was instructed by Ms Rippington and the other defendants and provided the professional services set out in detail in the Bill of Costs produced to the Court. Meenan J held that Ms Rippington had failed to substantiate in any way her allegation of professional negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Meenan J held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed against the defendants to recover an amount for legal professional services. Meenan J held that the actual amount recoverable may be determined, either by an order for adjudication of costs or, may be measured by the High Court. Meenan J would hear the parties on this.

Claim successful.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Meenan delivered on the 6th day of March, 2020

Introduction

1 This is a claim by the plaintiff, a firm of Solicitors, to recover professional fees from the defendants which were incurred when they were instructed to act on behalf of the defendants in proceedings entitled Magella Rippington, Shaun Rippington and Edel Banahan v. Michael Cox and Mary Butler, the High Court (2011 No. 8319 P) (the “probate proceedings”).

2 The probate proceedings were but one of a number of proceedings initiated by the first named plaintiff, Ms. Rippington, and the other named defendants against numerous individuals, in particular, professional people who may have crossed their path. In the various proceedings, when unsuccessful at first instance, as was almost invariably the case, the decision was appealed, with a similar result. Court proceedings were in addition to various complaints made by Ms. Rippington to the Law Society, which were equally unsuccessful. Ultimately, in proceedings entitled Majella Rippington v. Ireland, The Attorney General, the Principal Probate Registry, the Law Society of Ireland & Ors. (2018 No. 4803 P), Simons J. made an “Isaac Wunder” Order against Ms. Rippington.

3 In these proceedings, Ms. Rippington, who appeared in person on behalf of the second and third named defendants, sought to resist judgment in favour of the plaintiffs by attempting to relitigate matters long since decided against her and by alleging professional negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Needless to say, Ms. Rippington had no expert report to substantiate her claims, despite being advised by the Court of the requirement for same in the course of a failed adjournment application by her some time before the date for hearing.

Probate proceedings

4 The probate proceedings concerned the will of the late Celine Murphy, sister of Ms. Rippington, who died on 15 March 2011. Ms. Rippington and the second and third named defendants challenged the will on the grounds, inter alia, that the will had not been executed by the late Ms. Murphy and, in the alternative, that Ms. Murphy had lacked the testamentary capacity to make the will.

5 The probate proceedings were heard by Noonan J. In the course of his judgment dismissing the claim, Noonan J. stated: -

“48. Furthermore, not a single shred of evidence was produced by the plaintiffs at the trial in support of any of these extremely serious and scandalous allegations. Indeed, more than that, not once in the course of cross-examining the defendants or any of their witnesses did Mrs. Rippington seek to suggest that they had exercised any influence over the deceased, good bad or indifferent, and specifically in relation to the making of her will. Nor did she suggest in cross-examination that the circumstances of the execution of the will were other than as stated by Michael Cox and Joanna Butler despite the clear plea that the deceased could not possibly have made a will in the circumstances alleged thus leading to the inevitable conclusion that either it was a forgery or as a minimum, the attesting witnesses had...