The High Court has ruled that solicitor Declan O’Callaghan’s appeal against professional misconduct findings must proceed as a full rehearing of the evidence heard by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The court did not decide the appeal itself or impose any sanction in this preliminary ruling.
Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, delivered the judgment on 30 May 2025. He held that the appeal arises under section 7(13) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1960, which allows a solicitor to appeal a Tribunal finding of misconduct. Section 7(11), which concerns appeals against Tribunal sanctions, did not apply because the Tribunal had made no sanction order against Mr O’Callaghan.
The Tribunal found Mr O’Callaghan guilty of professional misconduct on four allegations connected with a property transaction in County Roscommon in 2006 or 2007. The allegations included acting for both sides despite an alleged conflict, failing to ensure payment reached the vendor before title passed, providing inadequate services, and later acting for the purchaser in proceedings to recover the consideration. Mr O’Callaghan denies the allegations. The Tribunal recommended that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and that costs be ordered against him, but those were recommendations for the High Court to consider, not sanctions imposed by the Tribunal.
Mr O’Callaghan sought to pursue his appeal on the basis of the Tribunal hearing transcript and existing evidence, without calling witnesses for a full rehearing. Nirvanna Property Holdings Limited, which made the complaint, opposed that approach. The Law Society of Ireland took a neutral position on the scope of the appeal.
Under the applicable court rules, a full rehearing is the default unless the solicitor, the Law Society, the complainant and the President of the High Court agree to a more limited hearing. As Nirvanna did not agree, Mr Justice Barniville ruled that the appeal must follow the default procedure. He also declined to rejoin the Tribunal as a party to the appeal, noting that Mr O’Callaghan had previously agreed to its removal and would have a full rehearing.
The judge said Mr O’Callaghan would need to serve an amended notice of motion with revised grounds if he wished to challenge the substantive misconduct findings. He observed that most of the grounds already advanced concerned the Tribunal’s procedures and could “fall away” in a full rehearing. The appeal remains unresolved.
The judge’s view on costs was provisional: he indicated that Mr O’Callaghan should pay Nirvanna’s costs of the preliminary issue, with enforcement stayed pending the appeal, while the Law Society should bear its own costs. He left the question open to further submissions and listed the matter for mention on 5 June 2025 for final orders and directions.