The Supreme Court has refused John Colm Murphy’s application to extend time to appeal a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal finding made in September 1999, more than two decades earlier.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2023, Mr Justice Brian Murray said the court could extend the appeal period under section 7(11) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960 where appropriate. The issue had not been argued in the appeal, and neither the High Court nor Court of Appeal had decided it. Murray J. addressed it following the Supreme Court’s separate decision in Kirwan v O’Leary, which concerned a different appeal provision in the same Act.
Murray J. said applications to extend time under section 7 must give very great weight to the statutory deadline. An extension requires a clearly identified and sufficiently compelling reason for missing it. Such cases would most usually involve someone who intended to appeal within time but was prevented by a genuine and reasonable mistake or circumstances beyond their control. Exceptional circumstances are not limited to those examples.
Applying that approach, Murray J. agreed with the conclusion of Charleton, Baker and Woulfe JJ. that Murphy’s application should be refused. He stressed the public interest in finality and said allowing a challenge more than 20 years later, based on fresh evidence, new insights or later experience, would undermine that interest.
The judgment also addressed Murphy’s view that he had a strong case. Murray J. said the strength of proposed appeal grounds did not, on its own, justify an extension. Murphy had discussed an appeal with his advisers and appeared to decide against pursuing one because of the Law Society’s position. The judgment treated that as a conscious decision made at the time, rather than an inability to appeal caused by circumstances beyond his control.
The court therefore refused the application to extend time. The judgment did not decide the merits of an appeal against the 1999 disciplinary finding.