Edward Stevenson v Ann O'Neill

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Kearns P.
• Judgment Date: 11 January 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 1
• Docket Number: 106 SA/2009
• Date: 11 January 2010

[2010] IEHC 1

THE HIGH COURT

106 SA/2009

Stevenson v O'Neill

IN THE MATTER OF ANN O'NEILL, SOLICITOR,

MCKEEVER ROWAN SOLICITORS,

5 HARBOURMASTER PLACE, I.F.S.C. DUBLIN 1.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

EDWARD STEVENSON

TO THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT, 1954 - 2008

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL RECORD NO: 7013/DT48/09

BETWEEN

EDWARD STEVENSON

APPELLANT

AND

ANN O'NEILL

RESPONDENT SOLICITOR

SOLICITORS (AMDT) ACT 1960 S7

SOLICITORS (AMDT) ACT 1994 S17

SOLICITORS (AMDT) ACT 2002 S9

SOLICITORS

Discipline

Disciplinary tribunal - Appeal from tribunal - Allegation of misconduct by complainant - Whether actions of solicitor constituted misconduct - Res judicata - Isaac Wunder order - Appeal dismissed and Isaac Wunder order granted against appellant (2009/106SA - Kearns P - 11/1/2010) [2010] IEHC 1

Stevenson v O'Neill

Held by Mr. Justice Kearns in dismissing the appeal and making an Isaac Wunder order restraining the from bringing any further complaints against the respondent that the appeal fell entirely into the realm of the vexatious, were res judicata and should be dismissed.

Reporter: P.C.

Kearns P.

1 This is an appeal brought by the appellant pursuit to s.7 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act,1960 (as substituted by s.17 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 and amended by s.9 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 2002) against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 29^th October, 2009 which held that there was no prima facia case for an inquiry in respect of various allegations brought against the respondent solicitor by the appellant.

2 The appellant's central complaint against the respondent solicitor relates to a communication which she had with Anglo Irish Bank, Dublin, on Friday, 15^th October, 2004 relating to bank accounts held by the applicant in that bank. This communication arose in the context of family law proceedings in which the appellant was then engaged and which were in fact at hearing before McKechnie J. in the High Court by way of appeal from the Circuit Court.

3 The appellant's present complaint is not a new complaint. It was fully ventilated before McKechnie J. and was the subject matter of a previous complaint to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal by the appellant in 2006.

4 I have read the transcript of the relevant hearings before McKechnie J. and all the documentation and affidavits filed in respect of the subsequent complaints brought to the Tribunal. On 24^th February, 2006 it was the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that there was no prima facia case of misconduct made out against the respondent solicitor in respect of the events which occurred on the 15^th October, 2004.

5 This finding was the subject matter of an appeal to Finnegan P. who by judgment delivered on 26^th...