The Court of Appeal has refused an application by Debra Edney James to extend the time for appealing the substantive part of a High Court decision concerning complaints she made against solicitors James Watters and Stevroy Steer.
Mr Justice Robert Haughton, with whom Justices Murray and Barniville agreed, ruled on 3 December 2021 that Ms James had shown a genuine intention to appeal in time and had made an understandable procedural mistake. But he found she had not shown an arguable ground of appeal, a requirement the court considered decisive in the circumstances.
Ms James’s complaints arose from legal services provided in connection with her unsuccessful application for an Irish State Pension (contributory) and a separate medical negligence matter. She alleged, among other things, that the solicitors had dishonestly reinforced a mistaken understanding of her pension entitlement to induce her to pay fees. The solicitors denied deception and said the complaints concerned the adequacy of their professional services.
The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal had found no prima facie case of misconduct on the contested complaints. On Ms James’s appeal, the High Court dismissed those complaints but, with the respondents’ consent, remitted complaints about section 68 information letters for a disciplinary hearing. Ms James sought to appeal the High Court decision after the Supreme Court refused leave for a direct appeal.
The Court of Appeal said the alleged dishonesty was supported by inference rather than direct evidence. It considered that the interactions could also support other explanations, including that the solicitors were pursuing available local appeal steps before considering judicial review, or that their service may have been inadequate. The court said the more serious inference—that the solicitors knowingly deceived Ms James for gain—would be speculative on the material presented, particularly given the criminal standard of proof relevant to an allegation of an offence.
The judgment also addressed a page that Ms James said was missing from notes of a meeting. For the purpose of this application only, the court accepted that she could show a page was probably missing. It said that fact alone did not establish dishonesty, and that the missing page itself had not been the subject of a formal complaint to the Tribunal. The court also rejected her proposed grounds concerning the High Court’s treatment of the evidence and reasons.
The application to extend time was refused. The court did not need to determine the separate application to admit new evidence, though it considered the document examiner’s report when deciding the extension application. Ms James’s appeal concerning the High Court costs order was in time and remained to be heard. The court directed written submissions on that appeal and on the costs of the extension application, followed by a short hearing.