In the matter of Karl OâConnor, seeking to be appointed a Notary Public,  IESC 2 (2017)
|Docket Number:||48/16 (Notary)|
THE SUPREME COURT
In the matter of Karl O’Connor, seeking to be appointed
a Notary Public
In the matter of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961
Ruling delivered on the 27th day of January, 2017 by Denham C.J.
Karl O’Connor, the petitioner, and hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”, brought forward a petition requesting to be appointed a Notary Public for the City of Dublin and the administrative counties of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South County Dublin and the counties of Kildare, Wicklow and Meath.
In his petition, dated the 24th November, 2016, the petitioner set out facts relating to his application. These facts included that he was admitted as a solicitor of the Courts of Ireland in the Easter term of 2008. He set out his professional history, commencing with his apprenticeship and then his continuous practice as follows:-
2008 – 2013: in-house solicitor with Sanmina Ireland, Rathealy Road, Fermoy, Co. Cork
2013 – 2015: in-house solicitor with Sanmina Corporation, 2700 North First Street, San Jose, California 95134, USA.
2015 – to date: in-house solicitor with Venizon Services Ireland Limited, Block T, Eastpoint Business Park, Dublin 3.
The petitioner explained that he has been awarded qualifications in law as follows:-
2003: Diploma in Legal Studies by the Dublin Institute for Technology, Aungier Street, Dublin.
2007: Diploma in Finance Law by the Law Society of Ireland.
2009: Diploma in Corporate Law and Governance by the Law Society of Ireland.
2009: Admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in England and Wales.
2011: Diploma in Information Technology and Intellectual Property Law by the Law Society of Ireland.
2011: Admitted to the Patents Office of Ireland as a Registered Trade Mark Agent.
2016: Diploma in Notarial Law and Practice by the Institute of Notarial Studies - a division of the Faculty of Notaries Public in Ireland.
In his petition the petitioner drew careful attention to the fact that he has the express consent of his employer to seek to be appointed a Notary Public. The petitioner also stated that he would be in a position to provide a significant degree of public service.
The petitioner explained also that it was against his employer’s policy for the employer’s property to be used as a public office by its employees. The petitioner did indicate that he could carry out notarial business in his own office, in his own time. However, I was concerned about the petitioner’s location and his...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL