The High Court dismissed Oliver Sheerin’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision concerning solicitor William James Murphy. The tribunal had found Murphy guilty of professional misconduct on six counts and not guilty on six others. The High Court left that decision undisturbed and made no order as to costs.
The judgment, delivered by President of the High Court Kearns P. on 26 January 2015, concerned an appeal from the tribunal’s decision of 21 July 2014, issued on 19 August. The tribunal had censured Murphy, ordered him to pay Sheerin €4,800 in restitution without prejudice to Sheerin’s legal rights, and directed him to pay Sheerin’s costs, subject to taxation if the parties could not agree.
Sheerin’s complaint arose from 12 property-related transactions between 2002 and 2007. The tribunal examined those transactions individually, along with complaints that Murphy had not answered letters setting out Sheerin’s concerns and had delayed returning files. It found misconduct in six transactions: Athlumney, Barrack Street, Leesbrook Restaurant, the sale of one acre on Boyne Road, the sale of a cottage on Boyne Road, and a drawdown from Ulster Bank in Dundalk.
On appeal, Sheerin argued that the tribunal had denied him a fair hearing and had refused to consider evidence he later sought to present. He alleged that Murphy had been untruthful in his tribunal testimony and said between €50,000 and €60,000 remained unaccounted for. Those were Sheerin’s submissions, not findings by the High Court.
Murphy disputed that Sheerin had been denied a fair hearing. He said the tribunal had allowed Sheerin to raise matters outside his original complaint and denied causing him any loss. The judgment records that Murphy disagreed with the tribunal’s findings but had chosen not to appeal them.
The High Court reviewed the tribunal transcript and the parties’ extensive appeal materials. Kearns P. found no persuasive evidence that Murphy had deliberately lied or that the tribunal had failed to assess his credibility. The court was satisfied that the tribunal had considered the material evidence and made no error of law. It also noted that the tribunal chair had indicated Sheerin would not be cut short or have his evidence curtailed.
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court made no order as to costs, citing the lengthy, fractious history and the shared responsibility of both parties for how the dispute had come before it.