The High Court has dismissed Eugene McCool’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that there was no prima facie case for an inquiry into solicitor Colin Monaghan’s conduct.
In a judgment delivered on 9 November 2015, Kearns P. affirmed the tribunal’s 22 June 2015 decision. The court reviewed that decision; it did not conduct a new disciplinary inquiry. The original complaint concerned events surrounding a motion to refer long-running High Court litigation to mediation or another dispute resolution process.
McCool, managing director of McCool Controls and Engineering Ltd, alleged that Monaghan, who acted for Honeywell Control Systems Ltd in the litigation, gave false or misleading information about when the motion would be heard. McCool said this was an attempt to prevent the application from proceeding. Monaghan and trainee solicitor Peter Woods gave a different account in affidavits. They said a breakdown in communications led to confusion about the listing time, after Woods contacted the High Court Central Office or Courts Service switchboard on 31 July 2012.
The motion was adjourned several times between 23 and 31 July 2012, and was refused by Gilligan J. on 31 July. The tribunal found there was no sustainable evidence of misconduct. On appeal, McCool challenged the tribunal’s assessment, including its treatment of the competing accounts and the emails Woods sent about the hearing time. He argued that the emails and the operation of the court lists required external expert examination.
The High Court said the adjournments were not unusual and found no evidence of wrongdoing in the earlier postponements. It accepted the tribunal’s finding that there was no prima facie evidence of misconduct over the confusion on 31 July. The judge said a communications breakdown had occurred and that Monaghan or Woods might not have been entirely blameless, but found no compelling evidence it had been deliberately arranged to stop the motion or formed part of a conspiracy.
The court was satisfied that the tribunal had considered all the material before it, and rejected the claim that forensic analysis of the emails was needed for a lawful decision. The appeal was dismissed and the tribunal’s decision affirmed. The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying company litigation or make a disciplinary finding against Monaghan.