Sean Devine v Daniel McAteer and Gavin McGill
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Deeny J |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008} NICh 7 |
| Date | 24 April 2008 |
| Year | 2008 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2008] NICh 7 Ref:
DEE7147
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
24/4/08
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
CHANCERY DIVISION 2006 No. 52529
________
SEAN DEVINE
-v-
DANIEL McATEER
AND
GAVIN McGILL
________
DEENY J
[1] In this action the plaintiff sues the defendants and each of them on foot
of a writ of summons of 3 August 2006. The claim therein is for damages for
loss and damage sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the negligence, breach
of contract and breach of fiduciary duty of the defendants in and about the
management of Roe Developments Limited as a company within the rules of
the Enterprise Investment Scheme. The Statement of Claim of 12 February
2007, as amended, with leave, elaborated on this allegation. The plaintiff
contends that he lost tax relief of £20,000 with interest thereon of £7,336.88
which he was required to repay to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
because of a breach of the enterprise investment scheme regulations and
statutory provisions in connection with his investment in Roe Developments
Limited. The Statement of Claim made clear that the defendants were sued
not only as directors of the company but as tax advisers to the plaintiff and in
the first defendant’s case as his accountant.
[2] At the opening of the case I pointed out to Mr Coyle of counsel who
appeared for the plaintiff that the Statement of Claim was in wider terms than
the writ of summons. His submissions were firstly that it was legitimate for a
Statement of Claim to enlarge on the writ of summons and that no
amendment was necessary, but that if the court was against him in that he
would apply to amend. The defendants, who both appeared in person,
opposed the application to amend and the prior submission of Mr Coyle. The
court rose to consider the authorities on this point referred to in the Supreme
To continue reading
Request your trial