Daniel McAteer and (1) Sean Devine (2) Mary Devine (3) Brendan Fox, Partner, Cleaver Fulton Rankin Solicitors (4) John Love, Partner, Moore Stephens Bradley McDaid
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen LJ |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] NICA 79 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 07 December 2017 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2017] NICA 79
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: GIL10382
Delivered: 07.12.17
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
2009 No. 33855
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (COMMERCIAL LIST)
________
BETWEEN:
DANIEL McATEER
Plaintiff/Appellant;
-and-
(1) SEAN DEVINE
(2) MARY DEVINE
Defendants;
(3) BRENDAN FOX, PARTNER, CLEAVER FULTON RANKIN, SOLICITORS
Defendant/Respondent;
(4) JOHN LOVE, PARTNER, MOORE STEPHENS BRADLEY McDAID
Defendant.
BETWEEN:
DANIEL McATEER
Plaintiff/Appellant;
-and-
2
(1) SEAN DEVINE
(2) STEPHEN McCARRON
Defendants;
(3) BRENDAN FOX, PARTNER, CLEAVER FULTON RANKIN, SOLICITORS
Defendant/Respondent;
(4) JOHN LOVE, PARTNER, MOORE STEPHENS BRADLEY McDAID
Defendant.
________
Before: Gillen LJ, Maguire J and Madam McBride J
________
GILLEN LJ (giving the judgment of the court to which all have contributed )
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of Weatherup J (the “trial judge” or “TJ”)
dated 15 July 2015. The judgment relates to claims made by the then plaintiff, now
the appellant, Daniel McAteer against the original third named defendant, now
respondent, Brendan Fox.
[2] The appellant’s claim was made in respect of two causes of action:
(i) Breach of contract.
(ii) Conspiracy to damage the appellant’s business.
[3] Weatherup J, in a substantial judgment, dismissed both aspects of the
appellant’s claim.
[4] While there were originally two sets of proceedings relevant to the matters
the court had to deal with, each against multiple defendants, including Mr Fox, the
two actions were consolidated in 2012 and, as a result of various strike out
applications and agreements arrived at, by the time the now single and consolidated
action began, the parties alone were the appellant and Mr Fox.
[5] The action, the court has been told, took in the region of 28 days to hear, but
the hearing did not take place over consecutive days and there were, on occasions,
substantial gaps between hearing dates. The hearing seems to have begun in June
2012 but at one point the proceedings were adjourned in order to enable the
appellant to pursue some of his complaints against Mr Fox before the Solicitors’
To continue reading
Request your trial