Judgment: 2015-04-20 · Court archive

High Court dismisses appeal over solicitor’s alleged failure to answer emails

The court upheld a disciplinary tribunal’s finding that Michael Fitzpatrick was not guilty of misconduct, after accepting that he had responded to the correspondence at issue.

High Court · [2015] IEHC 231

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Joan Malone (Appellant)
  • Michael Fitzpatrick
What

The court upheld a disciplinary tribunal’s finding that Michael Fitzpatrick was not guilty of misconduct, after accepting that he had responded to the correspondence at issue.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 12 November 2014

    The appeal concerned one allegation: that Mr Fitzpatrick failed to respond to emails from Ms Malone. The tribunal had initially found a prima facie case in relation to that allegation, but after an inquiry on 12 November 2014 concluded there was no misconduct.

  • 16 November 2007

    Ms Malone said she did not receive a copy of the terms of settlement in her former employment case and that she received no reply to emails sent on 16 November 2007, 17 November 2007, 15 January 2008 and 21 January 2008.

  • 16 April 2008

    Mr Fitzpatrick told the court that he wrote to her on 16 November 2007, replying to emails sent on 10 and 16 November, and believed he enclosed the settlement agreement. He said he wrote again on 20 November after receiving no response, and later sent letters on 15 January and 21 January 2008 and 16 April 2008. He maintained that he had adequately replied to all correspondence.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The appeal concerned one allegation: that Mr Fitzpatrick failed to respond to emails from Ms Malone. The tribunal had initially found a prima facie case in relation to that allegation, but after an inquiry on 12 November 2014 concluded there was no misconduct.

The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Joan Malone against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that solicitor Michael Fitzpatrick was not guilty of misconduct.

The appeal concerned one allegation: that Mr Fitzpatrick failed to respond to emails from Ms Malone. The tribunal had initially found a prima facie case in relation to that allegation, but after an inquiry on 12 November 2014 concluded there was no misconduct.

Ms Malone said she did not receive a copy of the terms of settlement in her former employment case and that she received no reply to emails sent on 16 November 2007, 17 November 2007, 15 January 2008 and 21 January 2008.

Mr Fitzpatrick told the court that he wrote to her on 16 November 2007, replying to emails sent on 10 and 16 November, and believed he enclosed the settlement agreement. He said he wrote again on 20 November after receiving no response, and later sent letters on 15 January and 21 January 2008 and 16 April 2008. He maintained that he had adequately replied to all correspondence.

The court said the appeal was confined to the complaint investigated by the tribunal. It did not determine Ms Malone’s other complaints about her former employer, hospital staff, counsel or another solicitor, and made no findings on their truth.

The tribunal had accepted Mr Fitzpatrick’s evidence that he enclosed the settlement terms with his 16 November letter. It had also found that, even if they were not enclosed, the circumstances did not amount to professional misconduct.

Mr Fitzpatrick argued that the appeal was out of time and vexatious. The court excused the short delay, finding it adequately explained, and allowed the appeal to proceed. After reviewing the tribunal transcript and decision, it held that Mr Fitzpatrick had adequately rebutted the allegation and had properly responded to the correspondence. It found no fresh evidence warranting a different result and affirmed the tribunal’s decision.

The appeal was dismissed. The court’s ruling addressed only the misconduct allegation within the tribunal proceedings.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review