The High Court struck out a solicitor’s purported appeal against a preliminary ruling by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, finding that no statutory right of appeal had arisen because the tribunal had not completed its inquiry or issued a report or order.
In a judgment delivered on 3 October 2017, President of the High Court Mr Justice Kelly said the appeal concerned the tribunal’s 16 February 2017 decision that Ian Mallon could not rely on an estoppel argument in the disciplinary proceedings. The notice of motion had described the decision as one made by the Law Society, but the judge said no such Society decision existed.
The Law Society had accused Mr Mallon of having a direct or indirect connection with Claims.ie or its operators or owners, and of accepting legal instructions that came through them. It alleged that the relevant parties knew, or should have known, that Claims.ie was acting in breach of section 5 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 2002. Mr Mallon denied the allegations, which remained before the tribunal.
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on Mr Mallon’s preliminary estoppel objection and rejected it as without merit. The inquiry was adjourned. When it resumed on 13 March 2017, the tribunal granted a further adjournment because Mr Mallon had started the High Court appeal, although it refused an adjournment sought on the basis of separate plenary proceedings.
Mr Mallon argued that the statutory scheme allowed an additional, “unenumerated” appeal to address a legal error during an ongoing inquiry. The High Court rejected that argument. Justice Kelly said the statutory appeal rights arose after the tribunal considered each misconduct allegation and made findings, followed by a report or order. None of those steps had occurred. Any challenge to the tribunal’s conduct before completion of its statutory role had to be brought by judicial review, not by an appeal under the Solicitors Acts.
The judge distinguished an earlier case, Stephens v Orange, as an unusual situation in which the tribunal had failed to complete its inquiry and left the matter “in limbo”. Here, the inquiry remained before the tribunal and could resume.
The court granted the Law Society’s application and struck out the purported appeal in limine for want of jurisdiction. The judgment said a separate ruling would address disclosure and candour failures by Mr Mallon’s solicitor and counsel; it did not determine the underlying misconduct allegations.