Carroll v Disciplinary Tribunal of Law Society of Ireland (& Other)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Justice O'Higgins |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1998 |
| Neutral Citation | [1998] IEHC 177 |
| Docket Number | [1997 No. 104 J.R.] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 15 December 1998 |
[1998] IEHC 177
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
Citations:
KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642
ANHEUSER-BUSH INC V BUDWEISER BUDVAR 1996 2 IR 242
DPP V SMYTH 1987 ILRM 570
O LAOIRE V MEDICAL COUNCIL UNREP SUPREME 25.7.1997
Synopsis:
Administrative Law
Declaration; disciplinary tribunal; alleged misconduct; unlawful discrimination; complaint made to the respondent; respondent dismissed the matter as no prima facie case had been established; allegations of perjury on the part of the notice party; whether the decision made by the respondent was irrational; whether the standard of proof required to establish a prima facie case of perjury is proof beyond a reasonable doubt; whether respondent acted with integrity and independence (O'Higgins J - 15/12/1998)
Held : Application granted
Carroll v. The Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society of Ireland - [2003] 1 IR 278
If a complainant who is not disbelieved alleges perjury in an affidavit, even if that allegation is not supported by other affidavits, then no reasonable tribunal could hold that there was not a prima facie case to answer. The High Court so held and further said that the form of order to be made would be discussed with counsel.
Justice O'Higginsdelivered the 15th day of December 1998.
The Applicant seeks a declaration that, in his Affidavit of complaint to the Law Society' Disciplinary Tribunal sworn on the 3rd December, 1996, he has made out a prima facie case of misconduct against Chistopher Ryan; alternatively, an Order of Mandamus and/or an Order quashing the decision that there was no prima facie case, further and other relief and costs. The Applicant has withdrawn his claim for an Order of Mandamus and seeks merely a declaration.
The grounds for relief were that the decision of the Tribunal was such that no reasonable Tribunal properly directed could have arrived at the same conclusion and, secondly, the Applicant complains of unlawful discrimination. At the hearing, the Applicant sought to argue the case on some procedural grounds but I refused to allow this.
The second grounds, i.e., those alleging unlawful discrimination, can be briefly dealt with. There was no evidence at all before me which could sustain a claim of unlawful discrimination and I have no hesitation in refusing relief on these grounds.
on the 15th November, 1995 the Applicant made a complaint in letter to the Law Society concerning one of its members, the Notice Party.
Following the complaint, a reply was received from the Disciplinary Tribunal which read as follows:-
"Dear Mr Carroll
Thank you for your letter dated the 13th November 1996.
The Disciplinary Tribunal is an independent Tribunal appointed by the President of the High Court and its procedures are regulated by statute and rules. Before a case is investigated by the Tribunal a sworn Affidavit, together will all necessary documentation, should be submitted specifying the allegations of misconduct by the solicitor charged and properly disclosing all necessary evidence. This Affidavit must show to the Tribunal that there is a case for enquiry. I enclose forms DT1 and DT3 which you should complete and have sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths or practising solicitor wish to pursue your complaint before the Tribunal. I also enclose an information leaflet in relation to the Tribunal and if you have any queries in regard to your application please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely"
On the 3rd December the Applicant gave the Society a completed from setting out the details of his complaints and an Affidavit of the same date setting out the facts upon which he relied to seek the enquiry. By letter dated the 21st February 1997, he was informed that the Tribunal of the Law Society did not find a prima facie case of misconduct and dismissed the matter.
In essence the complaint against the Notice Party was one of perjury in respect of certain answers given during a case at the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The Applicant swore in the Affidavit that the answers given by the Third Party were completely untrue, and referred to a memorandum signed by an Aisling Foley, and to an extract from the transcript ofa tape recording made in his presence relating to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v Law Society of Ireland
...I have not, for example, referred to the decision of O'Higgins J. in Carroll v. Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society of Ireland [2003] 1 I.R. 278. Instead the purpose is simply to give a flavour of the prolonged nature and intensity of the ongoing dispute between the Society and Mr. Ca......