The Supreme Court adjourned two motions by solicitor Daniel Coleman to the hearing of his substantive appeals, leaving undecided whether he may add grounds of appeal or rely on additional evidence. It also directed how the appeal papers and submissions are to be prepared. No hearing date is to be fixed until a case management judge is satisfied that the papers comply with the directions.
The appeals concern two separate High Court orders striking Mr. Coleman off the register of solicitors. The Law Society had received complaints about alleged irregularities. After oral hearings at which Mr. Coleman was represented by counsel, the Society’s Disciplinary Committee made adverse findings and recommended that he be struck off in both proceedings. No appeal was brought against those committee decisions.
At the High Court, Mr. Coleman appeared in person and sought an adjournment, saying he wanted to make written submissions and had received the papers only on the preceding Friday. The High Court refused the adjournment and made the striking-off orders.
Mr. Coleman’s existing appeal grounds focused on the refusal to adjourn. He now says that information and evidence available to him could cast a different light on transactions behind some of the committee’s findings. The Law Society opposed the applications, arguing in part that the material did not appear to have been available at the High Court hearing, could have been obtained earlier through discovery, and did not meet the legal criteria for admitting new evidence. The parties also disputed what hearing might have followed had the High Court granted an adjournment.
The Supreme Court had already allowed a third motion, concerning an affidavit limited to whether expanded appeal grounds or new evidence should be permitted. That affidavit may be relied on in the two remaining motions, which are the subject of this judgment.
Justice Clarke said the Court should hear the appeal as currently framed, consider how it would be argued if the motions succeeded, and then address whether to allow the additional grounds or evidence. He adjourned those procedural questions to the substantive appeal so the Court could assess them with a fuller understanding of the issues. The Court is to decide the motions first and the substantive appeals afterwards.
The Court directed that the papers be assembled in four books: the existing appeal materials; the proposed additional materials; the relevant motion papers and affidavits; and revised submissions and authorities addressing the issues in the required sequence. A single judge is to check the papers for compliance before a date is fixed. The judgment does not decide the merits of the appeals or whether the proposed grounds and evidence will be admitted.