Mr Conall Corrigan, Consultant Solicitor (retired)

This claim had been in progress for over ten years when I was instructed and related to two parties in dispute. The Claimant was contracted to provide and install mobile phone enclosures to be used by emergency services.  The Defendant subsequently claimed that this work was negligently carried out and/or that the goods supplied were not of adequate quality.

The Claimant sought particulars from the Defendants of the allegations and obtained some responses, although these appeared to be inadequate. In addition, there were other parties in the contractual matrix. There was no single contractual document setting out the respective obligations of each party but rather the terms of the contract had to be gleaned from the various steps taken and e-mail exchanges.

A prototype sample system was prepared and approved by the Defendant and it then went into production by the Claimant.  However, problems arose in connection with the units.  The Claimant complained that third parties kept changing the specification of the system although it was ultimately agreed to carry out remedial work to the system but without an admission of any liability, but with a view to maintaining good customer relations with the third party.  Unfortunately, these discussions were not concluded and further, an additional third party was contracted to carry out remedial works.

In essence an independent view of the Claimants performance, the nature of their instructions and the lack of any input in the design element of this contract was required on behalf of the Claimant.

I was advised that ultimately, I would be required to attend a hearing in the High Court, Belfast.

Client comment:

“This firm instructed Barry Kelly as an expert in a civil action. From the outset he impressed with his speed of response, professionalism, and friendly manner. He met the client in whom he installed a sense of confidence that he was entirely conversant with all the issues and had formed an early cogent and coherent critique of the opposing expert’s opinion.

He continued to deal with his task proactively and was crucially instrumental in achieving a successful outcome for our client. In short, without his input, I doubt whether we could have achieved this result.

His manner throughout the progress of this case was poised and he was available, often at times outside the normal working week, to answer queries which arose.

I would have no hesitation in using his services again should the need arise and recommending him to colleagues as a extremely competent expert in his field.”