Barry Sheehan, Practising Under the Style of Barry Sheehan Solicitor v The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and Bernard Bingham and Viola Bingham
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell C.J.,Dunne J.,Charleton J.,Baker J.,Woulfe J. |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IESC 20 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [RECORD NO.: SAP IE 2020 000068] [High Court Record No. 2016/82SA] |
In the Matter of Barry Sheehan, and in the Matter of the Solicitors Act, 1954 to 2015, and in the Matter of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
and
[2022] IESC 20
O'Donnell C.J.
Dunne J.
Charleton J.
Baker J.
Woulfe J.
[RECORD NO.: SAP IE 2020 000068]
[Court of Appeal Record No. 2017/573]
[High Court Record No. 2016/82SA]
THE SUPREME COURT
Costs – Misconduct – Jurisdiction – Appellant seeking costs – Whether there should be no order as to costs
Facts: The first respondent, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, found misconduct against the appellant, Mr Sheehan, in respect of certain of his dealings with the second and third respondents, the Binghams, in relation to their file. The appellant brought a statutory appeal in respect of the finding of misconduct, and sought to raise an issue as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make a finding of professional misconduct against him in the circumstances of the case. The High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected the appellant’s arguments. The Supreme Court granted the appellant leave to bring an appeal specifically related to the scope of a statutory appeal pursuant to the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960. The Court found in favour of the appellant, to the effect that he was entitled to raise an issue in relation to res judicata, and the issue in relation to the gateway provision contained in s. 7(1) of the 1960 Act. The Court then provided that it would proceed to consider the substance of the matters raised in respect of res judicata and the gateway provision. That led to a second judgment in which the appellant was unsuccessful, thus leaving in place the finding of misconduct against him. The outstanding issue between the parties was the question of costs following the conclusion of the proceedings. There was agreement between the notice party, the Law Society, and Flynn O’Donnell, solicitors for the appellant, that, as between the appellant and the Law Society, there should be no order as to costs in respect of the proceedings in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Agreement had been reached between the appellant and the Binghams, to the effect that they were not seeking any costs in connection with the appeal to the Supreme Court. That left over the question of costs between the appellant and the Tribunal. The position of the appellant was that he should be awarded the costs of a number of hearings before the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, save for the costs incurred in relation to the hearing which resulted in the final judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on the 17th February, 2022. He conceded that the costs of that hearing should be awarded to the Tribunal, as against the appellant. The Tribunal put forward the position that it was entitled to the costs of the Supreme Court proceedings, and that there should be no deduction in respect of the costs of the determination of its argument on the scope of the appeal in the proceedings. If that approach was not accepted, it suggested that the appropriate order would be that there should be no order as to costs in respect of the Supreme Court proceedings. It contended that it should be entitled to its costs arising from the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, but conceded that, if the Supreme Court did not agree, then it would be its position that no order as to costs would be more appropriate than an order for costs in favour of the appellant. A similar approach was taken in respect of the costs of the High Court.
Held by the Court that it would be inappropriate to make an order for the appellant’s costs against the Tribunal, incurred after the 14th December, 2016 in respect of the matters which resulted in the judgment and order of the High Court of the 31st October, 2017, given that the appellant had been unsuccessful in his arguments on the challenges to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, further, the finding of misconduct had never been displaced. The Court held that there was no factual basis for the actual challenges sought to be relied on by the appellant in relation to res judicata and the gateway provision as was finally accepted before the Court in the course of the last hearing. It appeared to the Court appropriate to take the same course in respect of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. However, given that orders for costs were made against the appellant in respect of those hearings, the Court held that the orders in favour of the Tribunal in those Courts should be vacated as the Tribunal had always contested the appellant’s entitlement to raise those arguments, albeit that they turned out be unsuccessful.
The Court, given that the appellant was successful in the first hearing and that the Tribunal was successful in the second hearing, made no order as to costs as between the appellant and the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
Ruling of the Court delivered on the 4 th day of May, 2022
This ruling brings to an end the protracted litigation between the parties which culminated in two hearings before this Court, resulting in two judgments delivered on the 16 th September, 2021, and the 17 th February, 2022, ( [2021] IESC 64 and [2022] IESC 9). It is not necessary to set out the background to...
To continue reading
Request your trial