The Supreme Court proposed allowing Elizabeth Shannon’s appeal against an order restricting her from bringing further proceedings without a High Court judge’s leave, while dismissing the rest of her appeal as moot. Its proposed order was to be stayed for 21 days, during which the solicitor’s representatives could apply to be heard.
Shannon, a solicitor who does not practise, had complained about the conduct of M.J. Carter, who acted for her and, it appears, her sister between June 1994 and March 1996. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal found no misconduct in November 2009. The High Court dismissed Shannon’s appeal in February 2010, awarded costs to Carter and made an Isaac Wunder order requiring her to obtain a High Court judge’s prior leave before bringing proceedings arising from the case.
Carter died in September 2015. At the Supreme Court hearing, no one appeared for the proposed respondent or the Law Society. Shannon sought to substitute Carter’s daughter and personal representative, but the Court said she had not been identified and there was no evidence she had been put on notice. It also said proof that a solicitors’ firm had received notice would not, by itself, show the firm had instructions to accept service.
The Court concluded the substance of the appeal was moot. If Shannon succeeded, the case would probably require a rehearing, which it said was impossible after Carter’s death; the Tribunal could no longer exercise disciplinary functions in relation to a deceased solicitor. The Court also said it could not conclude from the information submitted that the High Court’s costs order was incorrect.
The Isaac Wunder order was treated separately. Shannon said she had missed the High Court judgment delivery because bad weather made travel to Dublin difficult. The Court said a person facing such an order should normally receive notice and an opportunity to make submissions. It considered that making a complaint and appealing its dismissal was not, by itself, enough to justify treating Shannon as a vexatious litigant. It proposed allowing her appeal against that order, noting that its existence could affect her reputation.
The judgment did not make the proposed result final immediately. The Court proposed dismissing the appeal except as to the Isaac Wunder order, with that order stayed for 21 days. It directed the Registrar to send the judgment and order to Rochford Gallagher & Company in Tubbercurry, County Sligo, and inform the firm it could apply within that period for a hearing on the appeal or a limited aspect. If no application was made, the order would become final.