The High Court has refused an application by John Desmond Mallon to instruct barrister Eugenie Houston directly in proceedings challenging a possession order, without retaining a solicitor to represent him.
In a judgment delivered on 4 March 2025, Ms Justice Stack said the application concerned an interlocutory motion in proceedings challenging section 3 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform (Amendment) Act 2013. The challenge arose from a possession order made against Mr Mallon by the Monaghan County Registrar on 6 July 2016. The court was not deciding the substantive challenge to that order.
The judge said the Rules of the Superior Courts require a solicitor to have carriage of High Court proceedings for a represented litigant. She followed the earlier High Court decision in *Bond v Dunne*, which held that a barrister could not have carriage of proceedings on a client’s behalf. She noted that later professional rules and legislation also prohibited barristers from taking direct instructions in contentious matters.
Mr Mallon relied on EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights and treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services. The judge held that the matter was wholly internal to Ireland: it involved an Irish client, an Irish lawyer and the Irish courts. She found that the relevant court rules were not implementing EU law and that no applicable EU right had been identified. She also noted there was no evidence that requiring a solicitor had prevented Mr Mallon from accessing the courts or obtaining an effective remedy.
The court refused the application, finding no legal basis to disapply its rules. It said Mr Mallon remained entitled to representation and could retain a solicitor, but was not obliged to retain counsel; he could also appear in person. Ms Houston had been allowed to represent him on a temporary, “de bene esse” basis while the application was pending. Following its determination, she was no longer authorised to represent him in court unless instructed by a solicitor on the record.
The judge did not determine the applications by the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, the King’s Inns and the Law Society of Ireland to be joined as amici curiae, saying it was unnecessary to do so.