The Supreme Court appointed solicitor Karl O’Connor as a notary public for Dublin city, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, South Dublin, Fingal, Kildare, Wicklow and Meath after considering whether he could make the service reasonably available to the public.
In a ruling delivered on 27 January 2017, Chief Justice Denham said there was no doubt about O’Connor’s personal fitness for appointment. Her concern was how he would provide public service while working as an in-house solicitor, and whether he would be available at reasonable hours from a public office.
O’Connor’s petition said he had his employer’s consent to seek appointment. The judgment records that employer policy did not allow its property to be used as a public office by employees. O’Connor had indicated he could conduct notarial business in his own office and personal time, but the Chief Justice asked him to provide a further affidavit addressing his availability and the proposed locations for service.
In that affidavit, O’Connor described using his employer’s flexible arrangements to work from a home office and vary his working hours. He said his work for colleagues and clients across the United States often extended beyond standard Irish business hours. He stated that this flexibility would allow him to accept appointments during Irish business hours and weekday evenings.
He also said he could practise from a public office in Dublin 1, his home office in Dublin 3, or an appearer’s premises while maintaining the required standards. The judgment does not identify the address of the proposed public office.
Denham concluded that O’Connor would be able to provide a significant degree of public service day to day during business hours, evenings and weekends. She said the supplemental affidavit had clearly explained his availability and potential service locations, and was satisfied the appointment should be made.
The Faculty of Notaries Public in Ireland had consented to the petition. The court’s ruling concerned O’Connor’s appointment on the circumstances described in his petition and supplemental affidavit; it also noted that each application must be considered on its own circumstances.