McCool v Monaghan

Tweet

 

FREE EXCERPT

[2017] IESCDET 118

SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

O'Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

O'Malley J.

IN THE MATTER OF MR COLIN MONAGHAN A SOLICITOR AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MR EUGENE MC COOL TO THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL WITH RECORD NUMBER 9831/DT91/14

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACTS 1954 TO 2011

BETWEEN

EUGENE McCOOL

APPLICANT

AND

COLIN MONAGHAN

RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

Result: The Court does not grant leave to appeal.

Reasons given:

1 It is well established that in order to obtain leave to appeal to this Court, it must be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interests of justice necessary that there should be an appeal.

2 The Court considers it desirable to repeat that a determination of the Court in an application for leave, while final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned, is nevertheless a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

3 Facts

In this case the applicant, a litigant in person, seeks leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the 4th of May 2017, dismissing his appeal against the decision of the then President of the High Court on the 9th of November 20154, itself dismissing an appeal against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the 22nd of June 2015, which held that there was no prima facie case for inquiring into the conduct of the respondent solicitor.

3 Facts

4 The respondent solicitor had acted for a limited company, which the defendant in proceedings brought by a company McCool Controls and Engineering Limited, of which the plaintiff and applicant was the principal. The essential complaint made by the applicant against the respondent was that a motion had been...