Law Society of Ireland v Coleman

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,O'Malley J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 25 February 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IESCDET 26
• Date: 25 February 2021
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2021:000010 High Court record no: 2010 No. 65 SA

IN THE MATTER OF DANIEL J. COLEMAN SOLICITOR FORMERLY PRACTISING AS COLEMAN & COMPANY SOLICITORS MAIN STREET BALLINROBE COUNTY MAYO

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND TO THE SOLICTORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACTS 1954 - 2008

BETWEEN:

LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND

APPLICANT

AND

DANIEL COLEMAN

RESPONDENT

[2021] IESCDET 26

Clarke C.J.

O'Malley J.

Baker J.

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2021:000010

Court of Appeal record no: none

High Court record no: 2010 No. 65 SA

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Respondent to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: High Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 7 th September, 2020

DATE OF ORDER: 31 st December, 2020

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 5 th January, 2021

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 26 th January, 2021 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.

3 In that context, it should be noted that the respondent does oppose the grant of leave.

Discussion

4 As appears from the...