The Court of Appeal has dismissed Eugenie Houston’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of five consolidated actions against members of bodies associated with the Bar of Ireland. The appeal court said the claims were misconceived and without merit, and upheld the High Court’s conclusions on competition, defamation and assault.
The appeal was heard remotely and judgment was delivered on 30 November 2020 by President Birmingham, with McCarthy and Ní Raifeartaigh JJ. The original actions were consolidated by the High Court in April 2018. They followed Houston’s exclusion from the Law Library in March 2016 after correspondence about outstanding subscription fees.
The judgment recounts that two solicitors complained about Houston contacting their clients directly after instructing her as a barrister. The complaints did not result in a penalty, censure, suspension or exclusion. In February 2015, the Barristers Professional Conduct Tribunal issued an advisory opinion telling her not to engage with clients in a way that gave rise to the complaints or otherwise breached the Bar’s code of conduct.
The High Court had identified three broad categories of claim: competition, defamation and assault. On competition, the Court of Appeal agreed that Houston had provided no evidence to establish the market allegedly affected by anti-competitive conduct. It also rejected her request for a reference to the European Court of Justice, finding that she had identified no issue of EU law requiring a reference.
The defamation claims concerned statements made in connection with complaints and a response by the Bar Council’s director to the Data Protection Commissioner. The appeal court agreed with the High Court that the relevant communications were on occasions of qualified privilege and that there was no evidence of malice. It also upheld the conclusion that the statements identified could not be held defamatory.
On assault, the court said the fact that Houston had complained to Gardaí after receiving a text did not provide sufficient evidence of a reasonable apprehension of immediate battery. It upheld the dismissal of that claim.
Houston also argued that the High Court proceedings were unfair and alleged bias. The Court of Appeal rejected those grounds, noting that she had previously said she was not seeking the trial judge’s recusal. It concluded that the outcome reflected the weakness of the proceedings rather than the procedures followed.
The court dismissed the appeal.