The Supreme Court has clarified the legal principles governing applications to extend the time for appeals arising from findings by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), in a judgment concerning an appeal brought by John Colm Murphy against the Law Society of Ireland.
Mr Justice Peter Charleton delivered the judgment on 29 November 2023. He said the Law Society was content to assume there was no issue about extending the time limit in Mr Murphy’s case. The judgment does not state whether time was extended or set out the final outcome of the appeal.
The court’s reasoning refers to Kirwan v O’Leary, a Supreme Court judgment delivered immediately beforehand. In that case, the majority held that the High Court may extend the 21-day period for an appeal under section 7(12B) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, where the SDT has found that no prima facie case of misconduct was disclosed. An extension requires good reason; the fact that a late appellant may have a strong case is not, by itself, enough. Relevant considerations can include the need for finality in complaints and why an appeal was not made on time.
Charleton and Mr Justice Woulfe had dissented in Kirwan, concluding that section 7(12B) did not permit an extension. Charleton said he accepted Woulfe’s reasoning, but the majority ruling in Kirwan was the court’s decision and represented the law as declared in that case.
He said the similar wording and context of sections 7(12B) and 7(11) meant that time could also be extended in an appropriate case under either provision. The judgment applied that principle to appeals against an SDT finding under section 7(9), as in the present appeal. Whether to grant an extension must be decided using the principles stated by Mr Justice Murray in Kirwan and further considered by him in this appeal.
The judgment also described a prima facie case as requiring enough potential evidence for a court or tribunal to find that an alleged wrong occurred if the evidence were proven, provided it was not rebutted, qualified or explained in a way that undermined its sufficiency.