The High Court dismissed Michael White’s appeal against a decision that there was no prima facie case for an inquiry into his complaint against solicitor John Hussey. The appeal concerned the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision of 11 December 2009. President of the High Court Kearns delivered judgment on 10 May 2010.
White’s complaint to the Tribunal, made in July 2009, alleged that Hussey had given misleading or false evidence at an earlier hearing. White said Hussey denied knowing that private investigator Jim Healy had approached him with an offer of money to withdraw an earlier complaint. White produced a letter he said Healy had brought to his home in December 2007, proposing €3,000 in return for withdrawing the complaint.
Hussey denied making a misleading or false statement. In an affidavit, he acknowledged that Healy had been in contact with White during the earlier complaint process, and said Healy had authority to discuss the complaint on his behalf. Hussey said a nominal payment had been discussed subject to the Tribunal’s approval, but no agreement was reached and no money was paid. These were Hussey’s claims in response to White’s allegations.
The Tribunal had previously held an inquiry into White’s complaints about deductions from the proceeds of his hearing-loss claim. In May 2008, it found no misconduct: it said there was insufficient evidence to establish some allegations and accepted Hussey’s evidence that a solicitor-client fee had not been deducted. White’s 2009 complaint focused on Hussey’s evidence at that earlier hearing.
The Tribunal decided in December 2009 that the new allegation did not disclose conduct that could be construed as misconduct. White appealed under the Solicitors Acts. He also cited a letter Hussey had sent to another client concerning a 5% charge, and other matters connected with the earlier Tribunal proceedings. Hussey argued that White was attempting to reopen issues already decided and that the appeal was an abuse of process.
Kearns said he had set out the background to show how fully White’s complaints had been dealt with over the years. He found nothing in the documents or White’s supporting affidavit that justified allowing the appeal, and dismissed it. The judgment did not make a new finding on whether the alleged approach by Healy occurred or whether Hussey’s earlier evidence was false; it rejected the appeal from the Tribunal’s no-inquiry decision.