The Court of Appeal dismissed Alan P. Toal’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of his action, after he declined to pursue it. The court ordered him to pay the respondents’ appeal and motion costs, along with any reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
In a ruling delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 22 April 2016, the court dealt with three motions brought by the respondents seeking to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The court said Mr Toal did not contest its jurisdiction to grant that relief and did not seek to resist the motions.
Mr Toal’s High Court action concerned a professional disciplinary process. A complaint about his conduct, made by a former client in 2010, was referred to the Barristers Professional Conduct Tribunal. In February 2012, that tribunal determined that he had breached provisions of the Bar of Ireland’s Code of Conduct. A separate disciplinary committee later concluded, following a hearing in April 2014, that he had behaved intemperately and unprofessionally and had failed to co-operate with its inquiry.
Mr Toal began High Court proceedings in October 2014 challenging aspects of the disciplinary process. At the May 2015 hearing, his counsel sought an adjournment and asked the judge, who was a Bencher of the Honourable Society of King’s Inns, to recuse himself over apprehended bias. The judge refused those applications. Mr Toal then declined to take further steps in the case, saying he did not want to participate in proceedings he considered unlawful. The High Court dismissed his action and awarded costs to the defendants.
His appeal challenged, among other matters, the refusal to recuse, the dismissal of his action after he withdrew from the proceedings, and the refusal to refer questions to the European Court of Justice. In October 2015, his solicitors said he did not wish to pursue the appeal until proceedings he intended to bring before the European Court of Human Rights had concluded. At the April 2016 hearing, counsel said Mr Toal considered the Court of Appeal unable to provide an independent and impartial hearing because its judges were Benchers of King’s Inns, and withdrew from the hearing.
The Court treated counsel’s statement as indicating Mr Toal’s wish to bring the appeal to an end and dismissed it. It did not decide the underlying allegations about bias or the disciplinary process. The ruling also recorded that no application had been made for any Court of Appeal judge to recuse, and that no European Court of Human Rights proceedings had yet been commenced.