Farrell v Law Society of Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Kelly
• Judgment Date: 20 April 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 439
• Docket Number: [2018 No. 5 SA]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 20 April 2018

BETWEEN

ANGELA FARRELL

PLAINTIFF

AND

LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND

DEFENDANT

[2018] IEHC 439

[2018 No. 5 SA]

THE HIGH COURT

Striking out proceedings – Isaac Wunder order – Solicitor – Defendant seeking an order striking out the proceedings brought by the plaintiff – Whether the proceedings were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, were bound to fail, and constituted an abuse of process

Facts: The plaintiff, Ms Farrell, presented a petition to the High Court on 24th January, 2018, making allegations of alleged interference with the then President of the High Court, the jurisdiction of the defendant, the Law Society of Ireland, and alleged acts of malice, misfeasance and malfeasance by officers of the Law Society. The applicant sought an order for her restoration to her "office, place, situation and benefit forthwith" together with an order of mandamus under the Common Law Procedure Act 1856 commanding the Registrar of Solicitors to issue an annual certificate so as to enable Ms Farrell to practise as a solicitor. The Law Society brought a motion seeking a twofold relief. The first order sought was one striking out the proceedings brought by Ms Farrell pursuant to the provisions of Order 19, Rules 27 and 28, of the Rules of the Superior Courts and on foot of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The application was brought on the basis that the proceedings were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, were bound to fail, and constituted an abuse of process. The second relief sought was an Isaac Wunder type order restraining Ms Farrell from instituting any further proceedings against the Law Society seeking to challenge before the court the validity of orders made by the court on 14th October, 2013, 16th December, 2013, and 24th June, 2014, or proceedings seeking to compel the issuing to her of a practising certificate by the Law Society.

Held by Kelly P that, in the circumstances, he would make the orders sought and accede to the application of the Law Society. He would strike out the proceedings as being scandalous, vexatious, disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and constituting an abuse of the process of the court principally on the basis that they amounted to a collateral attack upon binding orders of the court, which were not susceptible to being set aside save by way of appeal, the time for so doing having long since expired.

Kelly P held that, insofar as the Isaac Wunder order was concerned, Ms Farrell would be restrained from instituting any further proceedings against the Law Society seeking to challenge before the court the validity of the orders made on 14th October, 2013, 16th December, 2013 and 24th June, 2014, or seeking to compel the issuing of a practising certificate to her, without prior leave of the court. Kelly P noted that the order concerning her bankruptcy was not one to which the Law Society was a party; consequently that matter did not arise insofar as the Isaac Wunder order was concerned. Kelly P made it clear that, if she were to seek to bring any proceedings against the Law Society in respect of that order, he would extend the Isaac Wunder to that also.

Reliefs granted.

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Kelly , President of the High Court delivered on the 20th day of April, 2018

1 This is my judgment on the motion brought by the Law Society of Ireland its members and officers past and present, which seeks a twofold relief. The first order sought is one striking out proceedings brought by Ms. Farrell. That order is sought both pursuant to the provisions of Order 19, Rules 27 and 28, of the Rules of the Superior Courts and on foot of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The application is brought on the basis that these proceedings are scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, are bound to fail, and constitute an abuse of process.

2 The second relief sought is an Isaac Wunder type order restraining Ms. Farrell from instituting any further proceedings against the Law Society and its members past and present seeking to challenge before this court the validity of orders made by this court on 14th October, 2013, 16th December, 2013, and 24th June, 2014, or proceedings seeking, while she is not a solicitor, to compel the issuing to her of a practising certificate by the Law Society.

3 The application in suit arises on foot of a petition presented to the court by Ms. Farrell on 24th January, 2018. It is a most unusual document and describes itself as: 'An originating petition for orders regulating the affairs of Angela Farrell, solicitor.' The petition recites that Ms Farrell 'is a solicitor' admitted in Easter term 1991. It then recites four orders dated, respectively, the 14th October, 2013, 16th December, 2013, 13th May, 2014 and 24th June, 2014. All those orders are orders of this court. They are described respectively by Ms. Farrell in her petition as the 'appeal strike-out order', the 'suspension order', the 'contempt against the seal order', and the 'striking-off order'. They are then dealt with extensively in the course of the petition. All of those orders, with the exception of that of the 13th May, 2014, were made in proceedings involving the Law Society of Ireland. The so-called 'contempt against the seal order' is an order made in bankruptcy. It is difficult to see how that can be the subject of this petition and be used as a vehicle seeking relief against the Law Society when that society was not party to those proceedings.

4 The petition then goes on to make allegations of alleged interference with the then President of the High Court, the jurisdiction of the Law Society and alleged acts of malice, misfeasance and malfeasance by officers of the Law Society. It concludes with the applicant praying for an order for her restoration to her 'office, place, situation and benefit forthwith' together with an order of mandamus under the Common Law Procedure Act 1856 commanding the Registrar of Solicitors to issue an annual certificate so as to enable Ms Farrell to practise as a solicitor. This petition was presented, notwithstanding Ms Farrell's stated position under oath on occasions that she is neither a bankrupt nor has she been struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

Chronology

5 While four orders are recited in Ms. Farrell's petition, there are in fact six orders which are relevant to her case. I will deal with each of them in turn. Having received 28 complaints against Ms. Farrell in the preceding two years, the Law Society imposed conditions on her practising certificate to take effect from the 1st August, 2013. Those conditions required her to practise as a solicitor in the employment of and under the supervision of a solicitor of at least 10 years" standing to be approved in advance by the Law Society. She was also required to wind down her practice and not to accept any new business. She appealed the imposition of those conditions. On the 14th October, 2013 the then President of the High Court, Kearns P., struck out her appeal and directed her to pay the costs of the application. The Law Society has no knowledge of any appeal brought by Ms. Farrell against that order. However during the course of the hearing she asserted that she had appealed. This was news to the Law Society. I ascertained that she did indeed lodge a notice of appeal and made an ex parte application in January 2014 to the Chief Justice seeking a stay on the order. She was informed that any application for a stay must be by way of motion, be grounded on affidavit and that she could apply for short service of such motion. No record of any application for short service or of the issue of any motion is to be found on the record of the Supreme Court. The appeal was then transferred to the Court of Appeal when that court was set up. It was open to her to have the appeal listed for directions but she didn't do so and no steps have been taken with a view to prosecuting that appeal.

6 As a result of Ms. Farrell's failure to comply with the conditions imposed on her practising certificate an application was made by the Law Society ex parte to the High Court to suspend her from practice. Such an order was made on the 16th December, 2013. It was described by her in her petition as the 'suspension order'. The order prohibited her from practising in contravention of the provisions of the conditions imposed on her practising certificate and ancillary provisions and lasted for just a few days. The Law Society was given liberty to serve a notice of motion on the respondent, returnable on Friday, the 20th December, 2013. Although this order of the 16th December, 2013 is recited in her petition, it is one of the more bizarre features of the submissions made to me by Ms. Farrell that she alleges no such hearing of the court took place on the 16th December, 2013. When I pointed out to her that the necessary inference from that submission was that the court registrar must have been involved in a fictitious exercise of drawing up a court order in respect of a hearing that never took place, Ms. Farrell did not appear to be able to grasp that fact.

7 The matter came back before the court on 20th December, 2013. On that occasion Kearns P. continued the order until the 13th January, 2014 and gave Ms. Farrell leave to file a replying affidavit. On the 13th January, 2014 the previous orders were continued and the Law Society was given liberty to enter the premises of Ms. Farrell in North Great George's Street in order to take up the client files and documents there. None of these orders were appealed by Ms. Farrell.

8 In February 2014, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made findings of professional misconduct against Ms. Farrell and recommended that she be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. I should mention that on the 13th May, 2014 Ms. Farrell was adjudicated a bankrupt in proceedings to which the Law Society is not a party. This order is described by her in the petition as the...