Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IEHC 19 ECLI:IE:HC:2011:19 AI generated

High Court dismisses appeal against Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for failing to obtain written apology in settlement.

Case Number IEHC 19
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's decision finding no misconduct. The appellant argued the Tribunal failed to rigorously investigate his complaint regarding the lack of a written apology from the Christian Brothers in a settled High Court case. The court determined the Tribunal fully considered all matters and confirmed the appellant had received an adequate written apology in the settlement terms. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as the Tribunal's findings were not deficient.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Solicitors Act 1954; Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: The Tribunal is not deficient if it finds no prima facie case of misconduct despite an appellant's complaint that a written apology was not obtained in a settlement, provided the appellant did receive such an apology in the settlement terms.

Keywords

AI generated
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal professional misconduct settlement terms written apology appeal dismissal prima facie case Solicitors Act 1954

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] IEHC 19

THE HIGH COURT

2010 100 SA

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITOR’S ACTS 1954-2002

BETWEEN

THOMAS SWEENEY

APPELLANT

AND

ANTHONY HANAHOE

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of Kearns P. delivered the 17th day of January, 2011.

This is a case with a long history, part of which included a hunger strike by the appellant, prior to the eventual settlement of his High

Court proceedings on 7th October, 2004 for the sum of €150,000 and costs.

This settlement represented a marked improvement on the compensation awarded by the Residential Institutions Redress Board and

also exceeded the sum awarded on appeal from the decision of the Residential Institutions Redress Board.

The terms of settlement included a written apology from the Christian Brothers which was contained in the terms of settlement sent

to the appellant by letter dated 24th November, 2004.

Notwithstanding this outcome, the appellant lodged a complaint against the respondent with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in

which he complained that the respondent failed to discharge his professional responsibilities in a variety of ways. These various

complaints were considered by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal who by decision dated 27th October, 2010, concluded that no prima

facie case of misconduct had been made out against the respondent.

The appellant has appealed the various findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which include the complaint that the Tribunal

failed to give adequate consideration to the appellant’s complaint that his solicitor failed to obtain a written apology from the

defendants in the High Court proceedings. The appellant further complains that the Tribunal has been “remiss” in its duty to rigorously

investigate his complaint and states that the findings that they have reached are “peripheral and inadequate”.

I have read all the papers in this case and am satisfied that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal considered all matters in issue fully and

comprehensively and I am satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is not deficient in any way.

I am also satisfied that the appellant did receive a full and adequate apology in the terms of settlement as evidenced by the

respondent’s letter to the appellant dated 24th November, 2004.

Nothing in the affidavit grounding the appeal of the appellant discloses any new material or information which would cast any doubt

upon the findings of the Tribunal.

I am therefore satisfied that the appeal should be dismissed.