The High Court has refused to release Colm Murphy from an undertaking that prevents him from making disciplinary complaints against people connected with the Law Society of Ireland while related proceedings remain unresolved. It clarified, however, that he may apply to the President of the High Court for release from restrictions on bringing court proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 24 May 2023, Mr Justice MacGrath considered Murphy’s motion to re-enter a 2010 Law Society application and to set aside or vary an order made on 1 March 2011. That order recorded undertakings by Murphy not to bring legal proceedings against the Society or disciplinary or legal proceedings against its officers, employees, agents, legal representatives or committee members while the case was pending. It also ordered him to bring no further complaints to the Society during that period.
Murphy sought to make complaints to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority about John Elliot and Peter Law. He alleged misconduct by Elliot in evidence concerning “Solicitor X” and by Law in his handling of the court proceedings. Those were Murphy’s allegations, not findings made in this ruling. He also referred to intended appeals and applications to extend time to appeal orders in other proceedings.
The Society did not oppose varying the undertaking to permit appeals and applications for extensions of time. The court had already directed on 29 March 2023 that Murphy be released from the undertakings to pursue such appeals and applications, to the extent they applied.
The judge said the undertaking continued while the proceedings remained appealable or under appeal, until final determination at appellate level or further variation. For court proceedings, he held that Murphy could apply to the President of the High Court to be released from the undertaking. The restriction otherwise remained, subject to that clarification and variation.
On disciplinary complaints, the judge found a significant potential for a parallel process because the proposed complaints concerned issues already determined by the court or the roles of witnesses and legal representatives in the proceedings. He concluded that releasing Murphy from that undertaking at this stage could disrupt the appeals process and would not serve the administration of justice.
The court therefore refused the requested release from the disciplinary complaint restriction. It refused the remaining relief except for orders already made or clarified in the ruling. The restriction is time-limited and remains pending final determination of the relevant proceedings and appeals.