The High Court dismissed Kevin Dunne’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that there was no prima facie case for an inquiry into solicitor Michael Shanley’s conduct. The appeal concerned three of five complaints considered by the Tribunal; the court did not order an inquiry.
Dunne had engaged Shanley for property transactions and business dealings. After their relationship broke down in 2011, Dunne complained to the Law Society’s Complaints and Client Relations Section. Following correspondence and the closure of that file, he applied to the Tribunal for an inquiry in August 2013. The Tribunal rejected the application on 20 June 2014.
The complaints included an alleged failure to register a judgment obtained by XK Structures Ltd against Barrack Construction Ltd before Barrack Construction entered receivership. Dunne relied on an August 2011 letter asking Shanley to have the judgment registered without delay. Shanley’s position, as set out in the judgment, was that the clients had agreed to negotiations after judgment was awarded. The Tribunal found no evidence Dunne had instructed Shanley to register it.
Dunne also challenged the Tribunal’s findings concerning €10,000 collected in litigation involving Windsor Style Developments and a €10,000 deposit paid by KBC Carpentry for a Ballymahon property purchase that did not proceed. He said the money was retained without consent. Shanley maintained that the Windsor sum was applied with Dunne’s authority to legal fees, and that fees remained outstanding in both matters. The Tribunal found the parties’ course of dealings supported his authority to retain the sums.
In his appeal, Dunne argued that the Tribunal had treated evidence of the parties’ dealings inconsistently and that there was no evidence of instructions supporting retention of either sum. The High Court said Dunne had engaged Shanley in dealings involving several companies of which Dunne was a director, and concluded that the disputed money represented part payment of professional fees. It found no additional evidence warranting departure from the Tribunal’s findings.
The court also considered the Barrack Construction complaint. It said the Tribunal had considered the correspondence, including Dunne’s letter, and was entitled to accept Shanley’s account of a period of negotiation after judgment. The appeal was dismissed. The judgment did not reopen the Tribunal’s other findings or direct a disciplinary inquiry.