The High Court has ruled that it had no power to extend the 21-day deadline for appealing a Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal finding that there was no prima facie case to inquire into a solicitor’s conduct. It also said that, even if it had discretion to extend the deadline, it would not have done so in Brian Curran’s case.
Mr Justice Eagar gave judgment on 13 January 2017 on Curran’s application for leave to appeal two tribunal findings concerning complaints against solicitor James Binchy. The tribunal found on 6 November and 10 December 2015 that there was no prima facie case for an inquiry. Curran received notice of both findings by email on 10 December.
The court considered whether the statutory 21-day appeal period could be extended. It held that the law set a mandatory deadline and provided no discretion to extend it. The judgment distinguished earlier authority allowing extra time for a different type of appeal, which concerned a High Court order rather than a tribunal decision.
The court went on to consider the position if it did have discretion. Curran swore affidavits on 28 December 2015, within the appeal period, but the court record described the filings as irregular because they lacked notices of motion. The Central Office advised him on 5 January 2016 that the papers could not be accepted out of time. Notices of motion were issued in April and May 2016.
The judgment said Curran had not shown a procedural misunderstanding that explained the delay or come close to establishing an arguable appeal ground. It also referred to his expressions of satisfaction with Binchy’s work during the earlier property and litigation matters, and to the court’s view that complaints had multiplied and changed. These observations were made when considering a hypothetical discretion to extend time; the court expressly said it was not reviewing the tribunal’s findings.
The court’s operative conclusion was that it could not extend the deadline. It added that, if it could, it would refuse an extension on the circumstances before it. The judgment did not determine the underlying allegations against Binchy on their merits.