The High Court rejected Dermot Connolly’s appeals against disciplinary tribunal decisions that he had not established a prima facie case for an inquiry into alleged professional misconduct by solicitors Sean M. Sexton and Joan Passi.
In a judgment delivered on 29 January 2008, Ms Justice Irvine reviewed the tribunal’s findings despite Connolly’s representative not addressing them at the appeal hearing. The court’s role was limited to confirming the tribunal’s decisions or finding that a prima facie case had been established on the complaints it had considered.
The complaints arose from the 1994 sale of Connolly’s home at 63 Clonard Drive, Dundrum, after mortgage arrears led the Educational Building Society to obtain an order for possession and threaten eviction. Connolly alleged, among other things, that Passi pressured him and his wife to sign completion documents and took the house keys before the sale closed. The court said the evidence did not establish a prima facie case of misconduct. Even if the keys were handed over on the closing date despite a claimed promise of extra time to leave, the circumstances might potentially raise a duty-of-care issue, but did not amount to professional misconduct on the complaints before the court.
The tribunal had also rejected allegations that Sexton colluded with auctioneer Lawrence McCabe to sell the property below value or concealed a valuation report. The High Court found the tribunal’s conclusions consistent with the evidence before it. The valuation by Olaf Maxwell put the property’s value at £61,050; Connolly ultimately sold it to a purchaser he found for £63,000.
At the appeal hearing, Connolly’s representative raised new allegations concerning legal fees, an auctioneer’s fee and an allegedly fraudulent invoice. Those matters had not been determined by the tribunal. The court said it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate them on these appeals. It offered limited comments, including that there was insufficient evidence to assess one allegation and that the others were unlikely, even if raised before the tribunal, to establish professional misconduct.
The court concluded that Connolly had not shown error in the tribunal decisions and rejected both appeals. It made no finding on the new allegations.