The High Court has dismissed Paddy Power’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision rejecting five allegations of professional misconduct against solicitor Mark Doyle.
In a judgment delivered on 19 October 2007, Mr Justice Birmingham said the tribunal had evidence on which it could reasonably reject the allegations. The appeal was decided on the transcript of the tribunal hearing, without oral evidence before the High Court. The judge said an appeal court should be slow to replace findings that depended on witnesses’ credibility.
The complaints arose after a damages action brought by Power and his daughter over title difficulties affecting a property they had acquired in County Galway. The High Court awarded €7,000 in damages in February 2003. After discussions, the parties signed settlement agreements on 18 February. Power later alleged that Doyle and his firm had pressured them over legal costs and the settlement.
The five allegations included that Power was told he owed €350,000 in costs; that letters setting out cost assurances meant nothing; that the firm threatened to take over and sell the property; that Doyle required €65,000 from a €75,000 settlement; and that copies of the letters were withheld before the agreements were signed. Doyle denied wrongdoing.
The tribunal had found the allegations unproved. It accepted Doyle’s explanation that any reference to €350,000 concerned potential costs exposure, and found that the July 2002 letters did not prevent costs being sought in connection with an appeal or settlement. It considered advice about possible costs risks justified and did not accept that Doyle had threatened to take over the property. On the fifth allegation, it preferred the evidence of Doyle and Brian Gardiner to Power’s account.
The High Court rejected Power’s procedural complaints about interruptions and his inability to cross-examine Gardiner, whom he had called as a witness. However, the judge found the tribunal had erred in restricting the topic of a text message Power said he received from Doyle seven days after the events. The judge held that the message was not directly relevant to the five allegations and that the tribunal could prevent Power from reopening his case to introduce it as rebuttal evidence.
Despite that error, the judge concluded there was evidence supporting the tribunal’s findings and dismissed the appeal. The judgment did not make a fresh finding on each allegation; it upheld the tribunal’s rejection under the limits of the appeal process.