The first, Rita McHale v Sylvia McHale and others [2026] IECA 66, (‘McHale’) considers the role of expert evidence in professional negligence claims against solicitors and the requirement for properly pleading such allegations. The second, Higgins v Coleman and The Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland [2026] IECA 146, (‘Higgins’) whilst not a professional negligence claim, contains important observations that large financial loss claims supported by expert accountancy evidence still need to be properly proved.
Taken together, the judgments provide valuable guidance on the scrutiny of both liability and quantum in professional liability litigation.
McHale: professional negligence pleadings need a proper foundation
Facts
In McHale, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the High Court’s refusal to allow the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim in long-running proceedings involving allegations against, among others, solicitor defendants. The claim arose against the background of earlier family and estate litigation concerning the estate of Richard McHale and included allegations about the role of solicitors in that dispute.
The proposed pleading went beyond allegations of negligence but included claims of professional negligence against the solicitors (para.17). The difficulty for the plaintiff was that the proceedings had been commenced, and a statement of claim delivered, without an expert report. The pleading also failed adequately to particularise the alleged negligence or breach of duty by the solicitors and did not plead an intention to rely on expert evidence where such evidence was required (para. 18).
Cooke v Cronin and the expert report requirement
The Court applied the familiar principle in Cooke v Cronin: professional negligence allegations will generally require an appropriate expert foundation. Before serious allegations are advanced, there should usually be expert evidence addressing whether the professional fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the relevant field.
The plaintiff accepted that expert evidence was required and indicated that a suitable expert had been identified. However, no expert report had yet been obtained.
Why the amendment failed
Against that background, the plaintiff sought leave to introduce a substantial amended pleading before the expert basis for the allegations had been established.
The Court of Appeal agreed that this was premature. If the anticipated expert evidence altered the basis of the claim, further amendments would likely be required.
The Court was careful to emphasise that there is no rigid rule requiring an expert report in every professional negligence claim. Some claims may be sufficiently straightforward not to require it. However, McHale was not such a case. The allegations were complex, the pleading was lengthy and involved, and the plaintiff had accepted that expert evidence was necessary.
Practical implications for defendants
For defendants, the decision is a useful reminder that professional negligence claims must be supported by an adequate expert foundation.
A lengthy pleading is no substitute for properly particularised allegations. Defendants should scrutinise whether the plaintiff has identified the alleged duty, breach, professional standard, causation and loss and whether expert evidence is required to support those allegations.
The approach is consistent with professional conduct obligations imposed on both solicitors (The Law Society of Ireland, Solicitor’s Guide to Professional Conduct, 4th edition) and counsel (The Code of Conduct for the Bar of Ireland, Rule 5.9), which require a proper basis for advancing professional negligence allegations. Although the absence of an expert report will not be fatal in every case, McHale provides useful support for challenging serious allegations that lack an adequate expert foundation at an early stage.
Put simply, where expert evidence is required, a claimant should not be permitted to plead first and search for support later.
Higgins: expert evidence and proof of loss
Facts
Although Higgins was not a professional negligence claim, it contains useful observations on the proof of substantial financial loss which are equally relevant in professional negligence litigation.
The plaintiff advanced an economic loss claim of over €1.75 million, supported by an accountant’s report. The difficulty was that the report relied heavily on figures supplied by the plaintiff and her husband. The accountant accepted that he had not independently verified key figures, had not verified property or rental values, had taken certain instructions at face value, and that the report included double counting (see paras. 1,9,16 and 35, and 21, 24 and 45-56)
The Court of Appeal backed the High Court’s approach. The claim failed because the underlying figures and assumptions had not been adequately established by the evidence.
Practical implications for defendants
For defendants, the decision is a useful reminder that a claimant's expert evidence should not be accepted at face value and that a competing expert report will not always be required to challenge the claim successfully.
An expert report is not a free pass. The burden remains on the plaintiff.
That is particularly relevant in professional negligence claims, where substantial loss figures are often presented in detailed expert reports that may appear persuasive at first sight.
Defence teams should scrutinise the loss claim at an early stage by asking:
- What was independently verified?
- What was simply accepted from the plaintiff?
- Is there double counting?
- Is the expert staying within their expertise?
- Has causation been proved?
- Has mitigation been addressed?
- Is the current figure consistent with earlier versions of the claim?
The pleaded figure is not the same as the provable loss. If the assumptions do not stand up, the claim should be challenged.
Practical implications for defendants and insurers
Taken together, McHale and Higgins demonstrate the importance of testing the evidential foundations of a claim at every stage of the proceedings.
McHale focuses on liability, highlighting the need for properly particularised allegations supported by an appropriate expert foundation where required.
Higgins focuses on quantum, emphasising that even substantial loss claims supported by expert evidence must still be proved by reliable underlying evidence.
For defendant insurers and claims handlers, some practical questions arise at the outset of any claim:
- Scrutinise the pleadings early. What exactly is the alleged breach? What professional standard is relied on? Is expert evidence needed?
- Interrogate causation. Has the plaintiff connected the alleged breach to the loss, or is causation being assumed?
- Challenge the expert evidence. What was verified? What was simply accepted from the plaintiff?
- Pressure-check the loss figure. Is there double recovery? Are future losses realistic? Is the claim consistent with the documents?
- Take good procedural points early. Weak pleadings and unsupported expert evidence should not be allowed to drive strategy, reserves or settlement value.
Final thoughts
These decisions reinforce the importance of a disciplined approach to defending professional negligence claims.
Professional negligence allegations require a proper evidential foundation. Where expert evidence is necessary, serious allegations should not be advanced without an appropriate expert basis.
Equally, substantial financial loss claims must be supported by proper evidence. Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue meritorious claims, but defendants and insurers are equally entitled to require those claims to be properly pleaded, properly supported and properly proved.
This is not a matter of procedural point-scoring: it is an essential part of effective claims management. In professional liability litigation, addressing these issues at an early stage can influence reserves, narrow the issues in dispute and shape the course of settlement discussions.
