The High Court has upheld a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that complaints by Michael and Brigid Quinn against solicitor Paul McDonnell did not establish a prima facie case of misconduct warranting an inquiry. The appeal concerned the tribunal’s decision of 1 February 2017. Ms Justice Faherty delivered judgment on 25 August 2017.
The Quinns alleged seven forms of misconduct connected mainly with litigation brought by Allied Irish Banks (AIB) over security for a €6.5 million company loan. Their complaints included that McDonnell altered a map used in court, issued proceedings against their former solicitors shortly before trial to intimidate them, interfered with a witness, misled the court about land ownership, altered a lease, lodged a charge without authority and withheld an email on discovery.
The allegations were disputed. McDonnell said the map’s red outline reproduced an existing version, the proceedings against the former solicitors were protective steps advised by counsel, and the decision about which witnesses to call was tactical. He also gave explanations for the lease’s dating and registration, and said the email was later supplied after his firm could not locate it. The tribunal found no prima facie case on any complaint.
Justice Faherty found no basis to overturn that decision. On the map, she said there was no evidence that the version shown at trial failed to replicate the outline on the map attached to the solicitors’ undertaking. She also found that the case before the trial judge concerned whether plots A, B and C were covered by the security, and that no map-identification issue had been raised during that trial.
The court found that issuing proceedings against the former solicitors could not, on the evidence, be treated as misconduct by McDonnell. It also rejected the witness complaint, noting that the Quinns could have subpoenaed the witness and that McDonnell said he was not involved in the exchange with the trial judge about the witness’s fitness to give evidence.
Plot D was not a central issue in the earlier AIB trial. The judgment recorded that the company held it under a 999-year lease from Carrickmacross Town Council. The court found no evidence that the trial judge had been misled about the basis of the company’s interest in the plot. It accepted the tribunal’s conclusion that McDonnell had reasonably explained the lease date and the separate compliant map submitted for registration.
The Quinns’ objection to the Receiver’s registration application remained before the Property Registration Authority (PRA). Justice Faherty said the High Court, hearing an appeal from the tribunal, had no jurisdiction to direct the PRA to provide documents or stop processing the application. The court also found no error in the tribunal’s treatment of the discovery complaint, noting that the email issue could have been raised in the earlier proceedings or appeal.
The appeal was dismissed in substance: the court found no basis to overturn the tribunal’s findings. The judgment did not determine the Quinns’ ongoing objection before the PRA or revisit AIB’s entitlement to enforce its security.