Mannion (applicant/appellant) Legal Aid Board & others (respondents)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hardiman,Hardiman J. |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] IESC 9 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 26 February 2010 |
[2010] IESC 9
THE SUPREME COURT
Hardiman J.
Geoghegan J.
Finnegan J.
Between:
and
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 13
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 14
CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S24
CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S25
CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S26
CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S28
CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S32(2)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 S3(1)
CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S11(7)
CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S8
CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S31(3)
CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S31(6)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Fair procedures
Certiorari - Mandamus - Fair procedures - Legal Aid Board - Allegations of professional negligence - Proceedings instituted against legal aid board - Whether appropriate for solicitor from legal aid board to prosecute claim - Duties of legal aid board - Civil Legal Aid Act 1995(No 32), ss 8, 11, 24,25,26,28, and 31 - European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 (No 20) , s 3 (1), European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), articles 6, 13 and 14 - Applicant's appeal dismissed and order refusing reliefs affirmed (79, 102 &152/2008 - SC - 26/02/2010) [2010] IESC 9
Mannion v Legal Aid Board
Facts: The proceedings had a long history whereby the applicant had sought the services of the Legal Aid Board to take proceedings against the Board and certain law firms arising from her complaint as to alleged negligence in dealing with her initial complaint relating to instituting proceedings against the vendor of an apartment. The applicant was granted leave for judicial review on the grounds that the Board failed to establish and/ or maintain an independent Solicitors panel containing a list of Solicitors willing to provide aid and that the failure amounted inter alia to a breach of the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995, that the administration of the scheme was not done in accordance with natural and constitutional justice and was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held by the Supreme Court per Hardiman J. (Geoghegan & Finnegan JJ. concurring) that the Court found itself in agreement with the judgment of the Court below, to the effect that there had been no failure to meet the requirements of natural or constitutional justice and the principle of nemo iudex in causa sua had not been breached. The appeal would be dismissed and the order of the High Court affirmed.
Reporter: E.F.
These proceedings have a long and tortuous history. In 1989 the applicant purchased an apartment in Tralee, Co. Kerry. She instructed a firm of solicitors (Firm I) to act for her in that connection. She alleges that there were serious problems relating to the apartment and to the management company. Accordingly she instructed another firm of solicitors (Firm II), to commence proceedings against the vendor of the apartment and her former solicitors, Firm I. These proceedings were instituted in 1994 but the applicant was unhappy about the manner in which Firm II dealt with these proceedings. She then sought the services of the Legal Aid Board, the first respondent here. However, she came to believe that it acted negligently in the matter and she sought the services of another firm of solicitors, Firm III. Proceedings were issued by that firm against the Board and Firm II in March 2001. Shortly after the proceedings were commenced Firm III sought to come off record for the applicant and were permitted to do so. In January of the following year another firm, Firm IV, came on record but some years later that firm, too, sought to come off record and were eventually permitted to do so, apparently over the applicant's objections, by the High Court. This occurred in 2005. She then retained Firm V who later ceased to act for undisclosed circumstances.
In 2005, the applicant contacted one of the "Law Centres" through which the Legal Aid Board makes its services available for the purpose of providing legal services in relation to her action against the Legal Aid Board and Firm II. This action has been adjourned by reason of the present proceedings.
In accordance with the ordinary procedures of the Legal Aid Board, an individual solicitor, Mr. de Feu of Tallaght Law Centre was assigned to meet with the applicant and process her request for legal aid and her action if the Board decided to grant legal aid. The applicant however felt that it was inappropriate for the Board to assign a solicitor employed by it (albeit in a separate Law Centre to that she had previously dealt with) to her for the purpose of prosecuting her negligence action against the Board and Firm II. She made this complaint frequently and in strong terms to the board commencing with a letter of the 18th March, 2005. She eventually took these judicial review proceedings arising out of this point. She was granted leave to seek judicial review by Mr. Justice Peart on the 23rd January, 2006. The relief she seeks are as follows:
(i) A declaration that in failing to assign a solicitor to interview the applicant to process her application for free legal services, other than a solicitor employed by the first named Respondent, the first named Respondent was acting contrary to the principles of constitutional justice and fair procedures, contrary to the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1995, and was acting contrary to the Applicant's constitutional rights and rights enjoyed pursuant to articles 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and was acting contrary to its statutory duty.
(ii) An order by way ofcertiorari of the decision of the Respondent on 19th May, 2005 which was conveyed to the Applicant by way of letter of 26th May, 2005.
(iii) An order ofmandamus directing the first named respondent to forthwith assign to the Applicant a solicitor other than one employed by the first named respondent for the purposes of processing her application for free legal services.
(iv) A declaration that in so processing the Applicant's application for free legal services as referred in the proceedings herein, the first named Respondent is not entitled to any information on the legal proceedings giving rise to the application for free legal services from the solicitor so assigned to deal with the application referred to in the preceding paragraph herein.
(v) Further or in the alternative, a declaration that sections 24, 25, 26, 28 and 32(2) of the Civil Legal Aid Act,1995 would, if applied in these proceedings, to the application made by the applicant herein, constitute a breach of her rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights.
(vi) A declaration that the first named Respondent in these proceedings has, in dealing with the Applicant and her application for free legal services, failed to perform its functions in a manner compatible with the State's obligations pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights, contrary to the provisions of s.3(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act,2003.
(vii) An order ofcertiorari of the memorandum dated 3rd November, 2005 issued by the first named Respondent, and signed F.J. Brady Director of Legal Aid, entitled "note re provision of legal aid in cases where the Board is considering applications for legal aid to take proceedings against the Board".
(viii) A declaration that the Civil Legal Aid Act,1995 fails to satisfy the constitutional obligations of the second and third named Respondents in relation to the provisions of free legal aid for civil cases and is in breach of the State's obligations pursuant to article 6 of the European Convention on HumanRights as applied in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mannion v Legal Aid Board
...Court, in which Ms Mannion appears to have represented herself, likewise proved unsuccessful (see Mannion v. The Legal Aid Board and ors [2010] IESC 9). 4 Following the dismissal by the Supreme Court of the just-mentioned appeal, Ms Mannion, on 14th December, 2010, issued a plenary summons ......