Barry Sheehan practising under the style and title of Barry Sheehan Solicitor v Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Bingham

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Dunne J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 15 December 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 137
• Date: 15 December 2020
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000068 High Court record no: 2016 No. 82 SA

BETWEEN

BARRY SHEEHAN PRACTISING UNDER THE STYLE AND TITLE OF BARRY SHEEHAN SOLICITOR

APPELLANT

AND

SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

BERNARD BINGHAM

AND

VIOLA BINGHAM

RESPONDENTS

AND

LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND

NOTICE PARTY

[2020] IESCDET 137

Clarke C.J.

Dunne J.

Baker J.

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000068

Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2017:000573

High Court record no: 2016 No. 82 SA

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Appellant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 26 th March, 2020

DATE OF ORDER: 4 th June, 2020

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 4 th June, 2020

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 17 th June, 2020 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B. S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 IR 812. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.

3 Any ruling in a determination concerns whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria identified above, is particular to that application, and is final and conclusive only to that extent and as between the parties.

4 The respondent is opposed to the application for leave to appeal.

The Application

5 This is an application for leave to appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal made 4 June 2020, following delivery by Costello J. of a written judgment of 26 March 2020, [2020] IECA 77 by which that court dismissed the appeal from a decision of Kelly P., [2017] IEHC 643.

6 The appeal concerned a finding of professional misconduct under s. 3 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 (as amended). The proposed appeal seeks to challenge the findings of fact and inference drawn therefrom by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and the decision of the High Court, and thereafter the Court of Appeal, regarding these findings. It also seeks to argue that the lower court did have jurisdiction to hear and determine a jurisdictional point made by the applicant arising from a plea of estoppel or res judicata.

7 Insofar as the applicant seeks to appeal findings, whether of fact or inference, it seems to this Court that no matter of general public importance arises, nor is it in the interests of justice that a further appeal on that aspect of the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal be permitted.

8 It seems to this Court however that one matter sought to be raised by the applicant does meet the constitutional threshold. That issue concerns the scope of the statutory appeal under s. 7(11) of the Solicitors Act and whether the jurisdiction of the High Court, and on appeal the Court of Appeal to consider if it was “proper for the … Tribunal to make the order”, permits a review of and consideration of jurisdictional error, or whether a challenge to jurisdiction is one that may be brought only by judicial review.

9 The applicant argues that the approach adopted by the High Court, and upheld by the Court of Appeal, can, in some cases, result in the pursuit of relief by a multiplicity of...