O'Callaghan v Nirvana Property Holdings Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Micheál O'Higgins
• Judgment Date: 04 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 693
• Docket Number: [Record No. H.SA.2024/115]

In the Matter of the Solicitors Acts 1954 – 2008

In the Matter of Declan O'Callaghan, A Solicitor Formerly Practising as Principal of Kilrane O'Callaghan & Co. Solicitors, Ballaghaderreen, Co. Roscommon

In the Matter of an Application by Nirvanna Property Holdings Limited to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Between

Declan O'Callaghan

Applicant/Appellant

and

Nirvanna Property Holdings Limited

Respondent

and

Law Society of Ireland

Notice Party

[2025] IEHC 693

[Record No. H.SA.2024/115]

THE HIGH COURT

Professional misconduct – Conflict of interest – Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 – Appellant appealing from findings of professional misconduct – Whether the disciplinary charges had been proved to the required standard

Facts: The appellant, Mr O’Callaghan, a solicitor, faced disciplinary charges of professional misconduct. In June 2024, the misconduct proceedings came on for hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the tribunal). The proceedings were prosecuted by the respondent, Nirvanna Property Holdings Ltd. The tribunal found in respect of each of the four allegations that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct. Following a sanctions hearing in July 2024, the tribunal recommended that his name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and directed the notice party, the Law Society, to bring the report of the tribunal before the High Court. The appellant appealed to the court under s. 7 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 from the decision of the tribunal. The matter proceeded before O'Higgins J by way of a full rehearing.

Held by O'Higgins J that the second allegation (the appellant failed to ensure that the consideration had passed to the vendor company before title passed to the purchaser) had to fall on account of the respondent’s failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was envisaged by the parties that the consideration of €250,000 was to be paid to the respondent. The fourth allegation (the appellant continued to act for the purchaser in proceedings against him for the recovery of the consideration) related to civil proceedings. The appellant stated that Mr Preston initially consulted his practice in relation to the proceedings but ultimately was referred on to Mahon Sweeney Solicitors in Roscommon who delivered a defence. O'Higgins J found that this evidence had not been contradicted and that disciplinary charge must fail. With respect to the third allegation (the appellant provided inadequate professional services and was in breach of his duty of care to the respondent), the state of the evidence left a doubt in O'Higgins J's mind as to whether that disciplinary charge had been proved to the required standard. O'Higgins J was satisfied that the facts of the first allegation (the appellant purported to act for both the vendor and the purchaser in a transaction where there was a clear conflict of interest), had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. O'Higgins J found that the test for misconduct under s. 3 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 had been met. In the circumstances, he was satisfied to the required standard that the respondent had proved its case with respect to the first misconduct allegation before the court.

O'Higgins J upheld the tribunal’s decision on the first disciplinary charge but allowed the appellant’s appeal with respect to the second, third and fourth disciplinary charges.

Appeal allowed in part.

Appearances:

Michael Mullooly BL instructed by Staunton Caulfield & Co. Solicitors for the appellant.

Ruadhán O'Ciaráin BL instructed by Langsch & Cunnane Solicitors LLP for the respondent.

Neasa Bird BL instructed by Fieldfisher Ireland LLP for the Law Society of Ireland.

Approved Judgment of Mr. Justice Micheál O'Higgins delivered on the 14 ^th November 2025

Introduction

1 . The applicant/appellant (“Mr. O'Callaghan”) is a solicitor facing disciplinary charges of professional misconduct. In June 2024, the misconduct proceedings came on for hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“SDT”). The proceedings were prosecuted by the respondent company (“Nirvanna”), and not by the Law Society. The tribunal found in respect of each of the four allegations that Mr. O'Callaghan was guilty of professional misconduct. Following a sanctions hearing in July 2024, the tribunal recommended that Mr. O'Callaghan's name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and directed the Law Society to bring the report of the tribunal before the High Court.

2 . This is my judgment on Mr. O'Callaghan's appeal under s. 7 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 (as amended) (the “1960 Act”) from the decision of the tribunal. The matter proceeded before me by way of a full rehearing with oral evidence and cross-examination.

Background history

3 . The case has quite a protracted procedural history. I will borrow from the factual background set out in the judgment of Barniville P. ( [2025] IEHC 312) which dealt with Mr. O'Callaghan's preliminary submission that this appeal should involve something less than a full rehearing.

4 . In May 2010, Nirvanna made a complaint against Mr. O'Callaghan to the SDT and applied under s. 7(1) of the 1960 Act for an inquiry into his conduct on the grounds of alleged misconduct in connection with a property transaction concerning lands in County Mayo (the “Mayo lands”) in 2006/2007. In February 2011, the tribunal decided that there was a prima facie case of misconduct on the part of Mr. O'Callaghan and directed an inquiry into four grounds of alleged misconduct against him. Those grounds were that Mr. O'Callaghan:

• (a) purported to act for both the vendor and the purchaser in a transaction where there was a clear conflict of interest;

• (b) failed to ensure that the consideration had passed to the vendor company before title to the property passed to the purchaser;

• (c) provided inadequate professional services and was in breach of his duty of care to Nirvanna; and

• (d) continued to act for the purchaser in proceedings against him for recovery of the relevant consideration.

5 . The proceedings before the tribunal were long and drawn out. There was a backwards and forwards of several affidavits between Mr. O'Callaghan and Tom Fleming on behalf of Nirvanna. Mr. O'Callaghan denied, and continues to deny, the allegations of misconduct made against him.

6 . The inquiry was initially listed for hearing by the tribunal in May 2011, but was adjourned to allow High Court proceedings in relation to the same transaction to proceed, in circumstances where the existence of those proceedings allegedly prevented a witness from attending and giving evidence at the inquiry.

7 . Various further dates for the inquiry were fixed in the period 2018 to 2019, but for one reason or another, it did not proceed. The hearing was ultimately listed to proceed on 11 ^thFebruary 2020. Mr. O'Callaghan was represented by a solicitor and counsel on that day. However, Nirvanna was purportedly represented by one of its directors, Mr. Fleming. At the outset of the hearing, an objection was made on behalf of Mr. O'Callaghan to Mr. Fleming representing Nirvanna on the basis that he was not a lawyer. The tribunal accepted that objection and acceded to an application by Mr. Fleming to adjourn the hearing. The hearing was initially adjourned until April 2020, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was deferred further.

8 . On the 30 ^th April 2020, Mr. O'Callaghan sought and was granted leave to seek judicial review of the tribunal's decision to adjourn the hearing, as well as the tribunal's jurisdiction to consider Nirvanna's complaint in circumstances where it was suggested that Mr. Fleming and his son may not have had the authority of Nirvanna to make the complaint on its behalf. In his ruling ( [2022] IEHC 13) Barr J. refused the relief sought. Mr. O'Callaghan appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was unsuccessful, and Butler J. ( [2023] IECA 3) rejected all of Mr. O'Callaghan's claims. The court held that the issue as to the Flemings' authority to make the complaint on behalf of Nirvanna was a matter that could be determined by the tribunal in the course of the inquiry itself.

9 . The inquiry before the tribunal finally proceeded on 13 ^th June 2024. Mr. Fleming gave evidence and was cross-examined by counsel for Mr. O'Callaghan. Mr. O'Callaghan contended that this cross-examination was unfairly constrained and curtailed by the tribunal. Mr. O'Callaghan also gave evidence that day and was cross-examined by counsel for Nirvanna. Ultimately, the tribunal found in respect of each of the four allegations that Mr. O'Callaghan was guilty of professional misconduct. Very brief reasons were provided in respect of the tribunal's findings.

10 . The tribunal sat again on the 2 ^nd July 2024 to hear submissions in relation to sanction. It decided that it would not be appropriate to make any order imposing a sanction under s. 7(9) of the 1960 Act, but instead directed the Law Society to bring the report of the tribunal before the High Court. In accordance with section 7(3)(c)(iv)(I) and (II) the tribunal gave its recommendations as to the sanction which, in its opinion, should be imposed. It recommended that Mr. O'Callaghan's name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and that there should be an order for costs made against him.

11 . The Law Society's motion bringing the tribunal's report before the High Court pursuant to s. 7(3) of the 1960 Act was returnable before the President on 17 ^th February 2025. It was agreed that the Law Society's motion would be held over pending the determination of Mr. O'Callaghan's appeal from the SDT, as required by O. 53B, r. 6(a)(i) RSC.

12 . An important issue arose in the context of Mr. O'Callaghan's appeal relating to the form that it should take. Mr. O'Callaghan wanted the appeal to proceed on the basis of the transcript of the hearing before...