Colm Murphy v The Law Society of Ireland and Simon Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice MacGrath
• Judgment Date: 24 May 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] IEHC 382
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 2004 19212 P

Between

Colm Murphy

Plaintiff

and

The Law Society of Ireland and Simon Murphy

Defendants

[2023] IEHC 382

2004 19212 P

THE HIGH COURT

Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice MacGrath on the 24th day of May 2023

The Undertaking and Order of 1 March 2011

1 . By motion dated 15 ^th October 2010, the Law Society of Ireland (“the Society”) made application to dismiss Mr. Murphy's civil proceedings pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court. It was contended that the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, amounted to an abuse of process and constituted a collateral attack on final orders of the court. Orders were also sought prohibiting Mr. Murphy from instituting any legal proceedings against the Society, whether by way of fresh proceedings or appeals from previous proceedings, or attempts to reopen previous proceedings, without first obtaining leave of the President of the High Court. In addition, the Society sought an order prohibiting Mr Murphy from instituting disciplinary or legal proceedings against any officers, employees, agents or legal representatives of the Society, whether past or present, or any member of any committee (whether present or past) appointed by the Council of the Law Society in respect any matter arising out of or relating to their work for and on behalf of the Society.

2 . On the 1 ^st of March 2011, the following order was made by the President of the High Court:

“And on the undertaking of the Plaintiff by said Counsel not to institute any legal proceedings (whether by way of fresh proceedings or appeals from previous proceedings or attempts to reopen previous proceedings) against the Law Society of Ireland pending the determination of the within proceedings

And on the undertaking of the Plaintiff by said Counsel not to institute any disciplinary or legal proceedings against any of the officers employees agents or legal representatives of the Law Society of Ireland (whether present or past) or any member of any Committee (whether present or past) appointed by the Council of the Law Society of Ireland in respect of any matter arising out of or relating to their work for or on behalf of the Society pending the determination of the within proceedings

IT IS ORDERED that

• 1) the Plaintiff bring no further complaints to the Law Society of Ireland pending the determination of the within proceedings

• 2) the said Motion be adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter (without prejudice to the right of the Defendants to apply to this Honourable Court for a determination as to whether portions of the within claim are non justiciable).”

Application to vacate or vary by motion dated 24th of February 2023.

3 . By notice of motion dated 24 ^th of February 2023, Mr. Murphy seeks to re-enter the Society's motion of the 15 ^th of October 2010 and to apply for an order vacating, setting aside or varying the order of the 1 ^st of March 2011. He wishes to be permitted to make various applications and appeals set out in his affidavit of the 7 ^th of February 2023.

4 . The background to these matters and the various disputes between Mr. Murphy and the Law Society have been set out in detail in this court's judgments in the civil proceedings, “the principal judgment”, the general motion, the s. 18 proceedings, the strike off proceedings, and in the appeals from decisions of the SDT (“the ancillary proceedings”). The civil proceedings, within which this order was made, have been determined by this court. Mr Murphy has indicated his intention to appeal from this decision in which his claim for damages was dismissed and also to appeal various other orders of the court in other proceedings. Mr. Murphy seeks to be released generally from the undertaking; or, in the alternative, to be released from his undertaking in respect of specific matters of complaint which he wishes to make. Mr Murphy seeks in the first instance to be released from his undertaking as a matter of principle, and has, alternatively, as will become apparent, suggested a further via medium.

5 . In his grounding affidavit, Mr. Murphy outlines the reasons why he wishes to be released from his undertaking at this time. Mr Murphy wishes to be at liberty to make complaints to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (“the LSRA”) against two individuals in particular, Mr John Elliot and Mr. Peter Law. This application is made against the background of the contentions of Mr. Murphy concerning the reliability and credibility of Solicitor X. In this regard, he references a number of matters, including that this Court allowed in part an appeal from the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“the SDT”) in respect of a complaint made by him concerning Solicitor X. It is contended that Mr. Elliot was guilty of misconduct by being untruthful in the evidence which he gave to this Court about Solicitor X. Mr Elliot was the Registrar of Solicitors and a principal witness for the Society in the civil proceedings. Mr. Law, a solicitor in A&L Goodbody, was instructed in the defence of the proceedings. He alleges that Mr Law was guilty of misconduct in respect of how the court proceedings were handled by him, and in particular in the manner in which matters were progressed before Hanna J. in 2012. The allegations made by Mr. Murphy against Mr Elliot and Mr Law are outlined in a letter of the 3 ^rd of February 2023 where Mr Murphy wrote:-

“ These solicitors have been involved in outrageous deceptions of the court and it is my intention to proceed with complaints against them. They have also repeatedly refused to correct the record even after the misleading of the court were specifically identified and pointed out to them. They are not above the law. The deception of Judge Hanna has cost the law society millions of Euros, has cost me at least ten years of my professional life and those involved must be held accountable. But of course, my complaint is not limited to the deception of Judge Hanna”.

6 . Mr Murphy also maintains that when he gave the undertaking in 2011, it was on the basis and understanding that his case would be dealt with, in full, at the earliest opportunity before Hanna J on 2 June 2011. He alleges that at that hearing, the Society misled Hanna J as to the basis upon which the case was before him. The court has addressed this allegation in its previous decisions. Mr. Murphy also raises various points that were raised during the course of one or other of the above proceedings and which he intends to air in the intended appeals. He places emphasis on the findings of this Court in the appeal 5297 / DT 170 / 10 (reference in this Court 2011 / 50 SA) and on various observations and criticisms made by the court regarding the actions of the Society. Particular emphasis is placed by Mr. Murphy on the appeals which were upheld as being illustrative of the fact that the appeals were not vexatious.

7 . Mr. Murphy also points to the Healy matter when this court, on a previous occasion, released him from his undertaking for the purposes of making an application for an extension of time in that case. He has also indicated that he intends to make a number of further applications including:-

(i) An application to extend the time within which to appeal the orders made in the s. 18 proceedings and;

(ii) An application to extend the time within which to seek to appeal the order in the strike off proceedings.

8 . The Society does not oppose Mr. Murphy being released from undertakings which might impact upon any appeal which he may wish to lodge against any orders of this court. This much is evident from the replying affidavit sworn by Mr. Shane Dwyer who is the head of Regulatory Legal Services of the Society. Mr. Dwyer makes it clear that the Society's position is that it did not believe that Mr....