The High Court has dismissed an appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that a complaint about a property registration disclosed no prima facie case of misconduct by a solicitor.
The judgment, delivered by Kearns P. on 3 November 2014, concerned an application by John Thomas Connolly about solicitor Paul Madden. The Tribunal had ruled on 23 July 2014 that there was no prima facie case for inquiry into any of the allegations. The High Court found no reason to depart from that decision.
Connolly, a retired pensioner and administrator of his late mother’s intestate estate, alleged that Madden knew Circuit Court proceedings concerning Folio 14369F were pending when documents were lodged with the Land Registry in 2011. Connolly said the registration cancelled Colm Casey’s ownership and registered Ciaran Sheridan and Eileen Sheridan as full owners. The judgment records Land Registry documents showing a registration on 23 June 2011 and proceedings recorded on the folio on 29 March 2011.
Connolly alleged that the registration proceeded despite notice of the litigation, amounted to fraud, and followed inadequate investigation or searches. He also disputed a 1985 memorial concerning an earlier transfer, saying it was incorrect and had not been completed. The judgment notes that his concerns about that transfer had led to separate High Court proceedings against another solicitor, George Wright.
In an affidavit for the appeal, Connolly said the family home had been sold without consent, that he had contributed to its purchase and was entitled to inherit and live there, and that Gardaí had removed him from the property. These were his claims; the judgment did not determine the property’s ownership or those asserted rights.
The court said no prima facie evidence had been exhibited to indicate misconduct by Madden in registering his client’s ownership in 2011. It also noted that at least one other transfer had taken place in 2002, before Casey’s interest was registered. The court said any ownership dispute was outside the scope of the disciplinary appeal and could not itself establish a prima facie misconduct case.
The appeal was dismissed. The ruling left the Tribunal’s no-inquiry decision in place; it was not a determination of title to the property.