Paddy Power v Mark Edmund Doyle

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Birmingham
Judgment Date19 October 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] IEHC 375
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[2006 No.14SA]
Date19 October 2007

[2007] IEHC 375

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 14 S.A./2006]
Paddy Power v Doyle
IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1960
SECTION 7 THEREOF
IN THE MATTER OF MARK EDMUND DOYLE SOLICITOR
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY PADDY POWER

BETWEEN

PADDY POWER
APPELLANT

AND

MARK EDMUND DOYLE
RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS (AMDT) ACT 1960 S7

SOLICITORS (AMDT) ACT 1994 S7

RSC O.53 r3

RSC O.99 r8

COURTS ACT 1981 S17

COURTS ACT 1991 S14

HAY v O'GRADY 1992 1 IR 210

DPP, PEOPLE v MCGUINNESS 1978 IR 189

JONES v NATIONAL COAL BOARD 1957 2 QB 55

PEOPLE (AG) v TAYLOR 1974 1 IR 97

MCMULLEN v CLANCY (NO 2) 2005 2 IR 445

COURTS

Jurisdiction

Appeal - High Court - Appeal from disciplinary tribunal - Role of appellate court - Whether appellate court can interfere with findings of fact made by tribunal - Whether appellate court can substitute own inferences of fact for those drawn by tribunal - Whether appellate court can substitute own conclusions of law for those drawn by tribunal - Hay v O'Grady [1992] 1 IR 210 followed - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 53, r 3 - Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 (No 37), s 7 - Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 (No 27), s 7 - Solicitors (Amendment)Act 2002 (No 19), s 9 - Claim dismissed (2006/14SA - Birmingham J - 19/10/2007) [2007] IEHC 375

Paddy Power v Doyle

SOLICITORS

Discipline

Disciplinary tribunal - Tribunal's interventions - Whether conduct of hearing impeded - Whether conduct of tribunal hearing unsatisfactory - People v McGuinness [1978] IR 189 and Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55 considered; People (Attorney General) v Taylor [1974] 1 IR 97 followed; McMullen v Clancy (No 2) [2005] 2 IR 445 considered - Claim dismissed (2006/14SA - Birmingham J - 19/10/2007) [2007] IEHC 375

Power v Doyle

1

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Birmingham delivered 19th day of October, 2007.

The Nature of the Proceedings
2

1. This matter comes before the Court by way of an appeal from a decision of a Disciplinary Tribunal established under the provisions of the Solicitors Acts dismissing a number of complaints of professional misconduct made by Mr. Paddy Power (the complainant/appellant) against Mr. Mark Edmund Doyle (the respondent). It should be noted that throughout the papers the complainant/appellant is referred to and refers to himself as Paddy rather than Patrick and I follow this approach.

3

Provision for an appeal to the High Court in such circumstances is made by s. 7 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 as substituted by s. 7 of the Solicitors Amendment Act 1994, and as amended by s. 9 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002. The procedure to be followed on the appeal is set out at O.53, r.3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986. In essence the procedure laid down is that the transcript of the disciplinary proceedings is read in chambers by the judge to whom the appeal is assigned and thereafter oral submissions are made by the parties in open court.

The background to the present appeal
4

2 2(1) The background to the present appeal is a lengthy one and it must be said a somewhat tortuous one. It appears necessary to refer to that history at least in outline.

5

The starting point is that in 1991 the appellant and his daughter Blaithnaid acquired a property comprising of approximately 65 acres at Aillencally, Roadstone, County Galway. The property is a very attractive one enjoying significant seashore access and on it is located a derelict village. There is no doubt that the property is potentially a very valuable one. A Galway firm of solicitors acted on behalf of the appellant and his daughter in relation to the acquisition.

6

3 2(2) In 1995 the appellant was anxious to sell the property but at that stage it emerged that there were difficulties in relation to title. The details of those difficulties and the extent to which the difficulties identified were capable of being remedied are not directly relevant to the current appeal, but do nevertheless provide the backdrop.

7

4 2(3) In January, 2001 the appellant and his daughter Blaithnaid Muireann Power issued proceedings against the solicitors who had acted for them in relation to the acquisition of the property. Initially the complainant/appellant was representing himself in this litigation. However, when the case was mentioned in a call over the High Court Judge taking the list told him that he would be well advised to consult a solicitor. It seems that the appellant was reluctant to do this as he felt, to quote his own words, "...that no solicitor could be trusted to sue another solicitor" (Transcript, 12th June, 2007 at p.6). However, while reluctant to do so, he felt it unwise to ignore the views expressed by the judge and decided to reconsider his position.

8

5 2(4) In these circumstances the appellant decided to discuss the situation with a particular solicitor, Mr. Brian Gardiner.

9

Indeed, it seems that he had discussed the case previously on an informal basis with Mr. Gardiner with whom he had a social relationship through their respective daughters who are friends. Mr. Gardiner told Mr. Power that he had recently amalgamated his practice with that of another firm and was now practising as Actons Solicitors at Lower Mount Street, Dublin.

10

One of the partners in Actons Solicitors was Mr. Mark Doyle, the respondent in the present proceedings, and Mr. Gardiner suggested to the appellant that he should meet with Mr. Doyle. In fact a number of meetings followed. Mr. Power has observed that Mr. Doyle, the respondent, was not the kind of man he could trust as he was "the most plausible man [he had] ever met" (Transcript Book 2, Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, 25th October, 2005 at p.179).

11

2 2(5) Mr. Power was concerned that he risked incurring a substantial exposure in respect of costs and he sought and obtained assurances in that regard. The assurances in relation to his exposure for costs, which were set out in two letters dated the 10th and the 11th July, 2002, are of central significance in the context of the present proceedings.

12

In addition to anxieties in relation to costs, Mr Power states that he also had a concern, as he puts it, that the Solicitors Mutual Defence Fund (SMDF) as the indemnifier of the defendant solicitor would lean heavily on his solicitors and get them to settle for a very low figure. He discussed these concerns with Actons and was assured that he had nothing to worry about. (Transcript Book 1, Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, 13th September, 2005, at p.34).

13

2 2(6) The hearing began in November 2002 and ran for eleven days. During the course of the hearing Mr. Power was represented by senior and junior counsel who were instructed by his solicitor. He is very critical of aspects of the manner in which the case was conducted.

14

However at this stage it is not necessary to consider to what extent, if at all, there is any substance in these criticisms. Judgment was given on the 17th January, 2003 by Murphy J. The outcome of the case was a bitter disappointment to Mr. Power and no doubt to his legal team also.

15

A very extensive claim for damages amounting to in excess of €1.4 million had been advanced. Elements of the claim included a sum of €850,000 said to arise as the amount lost when a would-be purchaser decided not to proceed, €200,000 for trauma, worry and inconvenience., €100,000 damages to the second named plaintiff Blaithnaid, for interference and depravation of her teenage life and loss of one year as a practising veterinary surgeon together with an amount for the additional cost and expense of maintaining a home in Connemara, and a sum for the legal costs that would be incurred in rectifying the title, together with a sum for expenses required for advertising and publicity.

16

In his judgment Murphy J. rejected most of these heads of claim and decided that the measure of damages was the costs that would be incurred in righting the title defects. It seems implicit in the judgment that Murphy J. was of the view that the defects were capable of being readily remedied.

17

2 2(7) On the 17th January, 2003 Murphy J. did not finalise his judgment and order but rather adjourned matters until February 13th, 2003 so that he could be provided with certain additional information.

18

3 2(8) On the 13th February, 2003 Murphy J. finalised his award and measured damages at €7,000. From the point of view of Mr. Power, this outcome was a disaster. The outcome was also very unfortunate for Mr. Power's legal team by virtue of O.99, r. 8 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 since the amount of legal costs that could be awarded was now capped at €7,000, being the amount of the damages. The level of the award also brought into play the provisions of the Courts Act 1981 s.17, as amended by the Courts Act 1991, s.14 giving rise to concerns about the possibility of an application by the defendant in the proceedings that the plaintiff should be ordered to pay to them the additional costs to which they were exposed by reason of being brought unnecessarily to the High Court. The existence of this sanction had a particular relevance to any possible appeal in that it facilitated the defendants in dissuading the plaintiffs from appealing and also greatly increased the risks associated with an appeal.

19

4 2(9) In the immediate aftermath of the ruling "discussions" ensued, to use a neutral term, between Mr. Power and his legal team, and between both legal teams. (Transcript Book 1, Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, 13th September, 2005 at p. 109). It is these discussions that are at the heart of the complaints now made by Mr. Power. On the evening of the 13th February, 2003, in the course of discussions that were taking place between the plaintiff's legal team and the legal team representing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Richard McCan v Judge Anthony Halpin and Another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 27 May 2014
    ...SUPREME 5.3.2013 2014 IESC 15 SISK v DISTRICT JUDGE O'NEILL & DPP UNREP KEARNS 23.3.2010 2010/47/11857 2010 IEHC 96 PADDY POWER v DOYLE 2008 2 IR 69 2007/51/10880 2007 IEHC 375 BULA LTD v TARA MINES LTD (NO 6) 2000 4 IR 412 2000/3/925 KENNY v TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN 2008 2 IR 40 2007/32/6......
  • DPP and Another v Burke and Another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 17 October 2014
    ...of a witness as in effect hostile and as to call a person a hostile witness is to use a term of art, citing Power v Doyle [2008] 2 IR 69. Baker J answered the questions of the District Court by holding the following: 1) Yes, but this was not to say that the evidence of Mrs Burke may be igno......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT