
The first solicitor firm was advising the plaintiffs in relation to the conveyancing. The second solicitor firm was advising the plaintiffs in relation to the co-ownership agreement pertaining to the lands.
The plaintiffs failed in a claim before the High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The first solicitor firm was not negligent vis-a-vis the plaintiffs – they were advising on the conveyance generally and it was sufficient that they passed the detail of the loan agreement to the second solicitor firm.
The second solicitor firm owed duty of care to the plaintiffs to advise on the wording of the loan agreement, even though such advices went outside the terms of the original retainer. However, the court held that the breach of this duty did not cause a loss to the plaintiffs, since they would have entered the transaction anyway, even if they were advised that the loan was on a full recourse basis – the third plaintiff had placed €2.5 million deposit on the property and they were under time pressure.
The court set aside the judgement as against the children and the wife on the basis that it was a matter to be determined whether it was equitable to permit the bank to enforce the claim against them generally or before pursuing the third plaintiff, on the basis that they had no liability under initial drafts of the loan agreement.
Get the full story and lessons via The Supreme Court, Full Recourse Loans And Legal Advice – Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration – Ireland.