Legal Battle Erupts Over Dissolution of Burns Nowlan Solicitors

A contentious split between partners at Burns Nowlan Solicitors, a Co Kildare legal practice, has escalated to the High Court, resulting in an injunction to prevent the firm’s dissolution. The dispute centers on disagreements between managing partner Matthew Byrne and fellow partner Stephen McGrath regarding the firm’s future and equity distribution.

Key Players and Contentions

• Matthew Byrne: Managing partner, holding a claimed 75% equity in Burns Nowlan Solicitors.
• Stephen McGrath: Partner with the remaining 25% equity.
• Jennifer O’Sullivan: Non-equity partner planning to establish a new practice with mcgrath.

The primary contention revolves around the distribution of equity and the future direction of the firm, particularly after O’Sullivan and McGrath announced their intention to form a new practice. One of the disputes between the two was the manner in which the equity might be distributed as their non-equity-owning legal partner Jennifer O’Sullivan had confirmed she and McGrath intended breaking out on their own to set up a new joint practice, stated Arthur Cunningham, barrister representing Byrne.

The Premises Predicament

A critical point of contention involves the lease of the firm’s office on George’s street, Newbridge. Byrne expressed concerns that the landlords, Gerry Burns and his wife Breda, intended to grant a new lease to McGrath and O’sullivan. This was a significant issue as the address of their George’s Street, Newbridge, office was a matter of significant importance to the Burns Nowlan practice and he had been advised by their insurance broker that they could not secure cover without a premises, Byrne stated in written evidence.

Byrne emphasized that he had not consented to this new lease arrangement, further complicating the dissolution process.

Arbitration Impasse

Byrne advocated for arbitration to resolve the disputes,citing the partnership agreement’s provision for such a process. The partnership agreement provided for any disputes or differences to be referred to arbitration for final and binding decisions, Byrne noted. He believed arbitration should precede dissolution, but McGrath reportedly resisted this approach, leading to a stalemate.

High Court Intervention

Faced with an impending dissolution, byrne sought intervention from the high Court. Mr. Cunningham argued that the dissolution of Burns Nowlan Solicitors could not be agreed upon between the partners. Mr. Justice Mark Heslin, presiding over the case, acknowledged the existence of a dispute falling within the arbitration agreement’s scope.

It seemed to him there was arguably a dispute falling within the terms of the arbitration agreement.

mr. Justice Mark Heslin

Consequently, Judge Heslin granted an interim injunction, preventing McGrath from taking further steps to dissolve the partnership, which had been scheduled for April 30th. Byrne provided an undertaking regarding damages, and the matter was adjourned for a hearing on May 12th.

Aftermath and Future Proceedings

While Judge Heslin encouraged the parties to exchange affidavits before the May 12th hearing, he did not mandate a formal exchange of documents. The future of Burns Nowlan Solicitors remains uncertain as the legal proceedings continue.

FAQ: Burns Nowlan Solicitors Dispute

Why did the High Court intervene?

To prevent the dissolution of Burns Nowlan Solicitors until disputes between partners are resolved.

What is the main point of contention?

Disagreements over equity distribution,the firm’s future direction,and the lease of the office premises.

What is arbitration?

A process where a neutral third party helps resolve disputes outside of court.

What’s next for Burns Nowlan Solicitors?

The High Court will hold a hearing on May 12th to further address the issues.