Dublin Circuit Court

1. September 2025: The Clyde & Co Motion to Dismiss

• The Application: Global law firm Clyde & Co filed a formal motion seeking to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Civil Bill against both Clyde & Co and QBE.

• The Listing: The motion was served on the Plaintiff and formally listed for a hearing on 12 December 2025.

• The Request for Authority: Upon reviewing the supporting affidavit, the Plaintiff issued multiple email requests to Garrett Cormican of Clyde & Co, demanding proof of the specific authority under which the firm purported to represent QBE. No authorization was provided.

• The Limited Mandate: Following Mr. Cormican’s departure from the firm, Garrett Moore of Clyde & Co filed a supplemental affidavit attaching a copy of the QBE authorization. The document revealed a strictly limited mandate: “Enter an Appearance and proceed to dismiss the case against QBE.”

2. December 2025: The First Court Hearing

• The Attendance: The Plaintiff attended the Dublin Circuit Court to formally oppose the Clyde & Co / QBE motion.

• The Listing Anomaly: While reviewing the official Court list before the hearing, the Plaintiff discovered a separate, un-notified matter listed directly above the Clyde & Co case: Plaintiff v Robinson Solicitors.

• The Deficit of Notice: The Plaintiff had received zero documentation, correspondence, or service of process relating to the Robinson matter, leaving him completely unaware that a Robinson motion had been listed.

3. The Interventions and the Calling of the List

• The Opening Statement: When the Court called the list, the un-served Robinson Solicitors matter was called first.

• The Verbal Exchange: Counsel appearing for Robinson Solicitors stood and stated to the Judge: “Plaintiff is a bully guy.”

• The Procedural Protest: The Plaintiff immediately informed the Court that he was entirely unaware of the motion, had received no supporting documentation, and had only just discovered its existence on the physical Court list.

• The Adjournment of the Issue: The Judge indicated that the Court was merely calling the list and would deal with the matter later, proceeding directly to the Clyde & Co / QBE application.

4. Bypassing the Listed Order

• The Order of Precedence: Counsel for Clyde & Co, Mr. John, requested that the Clyde & Co matter be heard entirely before the Robinson Solicitors matter. The Judge granted the request.

• The Formal Objection: Before arguments commenced, the Plaintiff submitted a written objection to the Court officer and provided a copy to Mr. John.

• The Authorization Challenge: The Plaintiff presented the limited QBE authorization to the Court officer, highlighting that the solicitors’ mandate was strictly confined to entering an appearance and seeking dismissal, not executing broader strategic maneuvers.

5. The Clyde & Co Arguments and Adjournment

• The Plaintiff’s Defense: Invited to respond to Mr. John’s presentation, the Plaintiff cited a fundamental procedural breach: Clyde & Co had failed to file a defense within the prescribed statutory period and had failed to obtain an extension of time.

• The Judicial Interruption: As the Plaintiff read from his written objection, the Judge interrupted, affirming that Clyde & Co possessed the necessary authority.

• The Cost Warning: The Judge directed observations toward the Plaintiff’s position, suggesting certain issues belonged before the Law Society, and explicitly raised the issue of personal financial liability regarding costs.

• The Direction: The Judge instructed the Plaintiff to go home, reflect upon his position, consider the exposure to costs, and adjourned the proceedings.

• The Robinson Omission: Upon adjournment, the Robinson Solicitors matter was neither presented nor argued by the parties before exiting the courtroom.

6. January 2026: The Unexpected Defense

• The Service: In January 2026, Clyde & Co abruptly served a formal defense on the Plaintiff.

• The Contradiction: No procedural explanation was provided as to why a comprehensive defense was served after the initial dismissal hearing had already taken place.

7. 29 January 2026: The Second Hearing

• The Setting: The adjourned hearing reconvened before Judge O’Connor. On this day, the Clyde & Co / QBE matter was listed directly above the Robinson Solicitors matter.

• The Courtroom Environment: By the time the case was called, only one other matter remained on the day’s list. Present were the Judge, the Court Registrar, Court officers, and the immediate parties.

• The Moving Party’s Submissions: Mr. John informed Judge O’Connor that the Plaintiff had been instructed at the previous hearing to reflect on his position and costs, but that his position remained unchanged.

• The Unaltered Record: The Plaintiff confirmed he had reflected on his position and reiterated that the defendants remained in default of defense during the relevant periods without a court-sanctioned extension.

• The Ruling: Judge O’Connor dismissed the Plaintiff’s Civil Bill and awarded full legal costs in favor of Clyde & Co and QBE.

8. The Robinson Application and the Cost Query

• The Un-Served Application: The Court immediately called the Robinson Solicitors matter. A different barrister appeared for Robinson Solicitors, requesting the dismissal of the Civil Bill.

• The Default Objection: The Plaintiff re-stated that Robinson Solicitors were in default of defense and that neither the motion nor the supporting affidavit had ever been served upon him, leaving him blind to the basis of the application.

• The Judicial Prompt: The Judge granted the Robinson application, dismissing the Civil Bill. The Judge then asked the moving counsel: “Anything else?”

• The Award: The barrister responded: “I am seeking cost.” The Court subsequently awarded full costs to Robinson Solicitors.