High Court dismisses appeal against Tribunal's finding of no prima facie case of solicitor misconduct.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court dismissed Kieran McDonagh's appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's decision finding no prima facie case of misconduct against Damien Tansey. The appellant argued that his April 2010 reply affidavit was improperly excluded and not considered by the Tribunal. The court held that the Tribunal correctly relied on affidavits available at the time of its March 2011 decision, as the late-filed affidavit could not have influenced that ruling.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedSection 7(12A)(a) of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Act 1960; Rule 9(a) of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Rules 2003: A Tribunal's decision on whether a prima facie case exists must be based on affidavits furnished at the time of the decision, and a failure to consider a subsequently filed affidavit does not constitute a contravention of the rules.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] IEHC 355
THE HIGH COURT
2011 39 SA
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 7(12A) (a) OF THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL ACT 1960
BETWEEN
KIERAN McDONAGH
APPELLANT
AND
DAMIEN TANSEY
SOLICITOR/RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT of Kearns P. delivered on the 25th day of July, 2011
This is an appeal by Kieran McDonagh (“the appellant”) against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated
the 3rd of March 2011, that there is no prima facie case of misconduct on the part of Damien Tansey, Callan Tansey Solicitors, Law
Chambers, 3 Wine Street, Sligo (“the respondent solicitor”).
The appellant appeals the decision of the Tribunal on the basis that his replying affidavit of April 2010 was excluded and was not
considered by the Tribunal in coming to its decision, claiming that this is not in accordance with rule 9 (a) of the Solicitors Disciplinary
Tribunal Rules, 2003.
Each of the allegations made by the appellant against the respondent solicitor was rejected by the Tribunal as being adequately
rebutted by the respondent solicitor in his affidavit sworn on 2nd February, 2011.
The appellant’s appeal against the Tribunal decision is rejected for the following reasons:
(i) Rule 9 (a) of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Rules, 2003 provides inter alia that the decision by the Tribunal as to
whether or not there is a prima facie case of misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor for inquiry by the Tribunal
shall be made on the basis of the affidavit or affidavits furnished to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal made its decision on 3rd March, 2011 on the basis of affidavits which had been furnished to it at that time.
The appellant filed an affidavit on 27th April, 2011 in response to the affidavit of the respondent solicitor. The appellant
appeals against the failure of the Tribunal to consider this affidavit of 27th April, 2011, filed almost 2 months after the
Tribunal decision was made. It was impossible for the Tribunal to consider this affidavit in coming to its decision, as it was
not available to it at the time the Tribunal was making its decision and. There is therefore no contravention by the
Tribunal of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Rules.
(ii) I have considered the content of the appellant’s affidavit sworn on 27th April, 2011. I am satisfied that even if this
affidavit had been considered by the Tribunal, the appellant has produced no evidence to substantiate any allegations of
misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor.
The Court agrees with the findings of the Tribunal, that there is no misconduct on the part of the respondent solicitor.
I therefore dismiss the appeal.