The High Court dismissed five consolidated actions brought by barrister Eugenie Houston against members of the General Council of the Bar of Ireland and its professional and disciplinary bodies, finding she had not made out a prima facie case for any of her claims.
Mr Justice Twomey delivered judgment on 18 July 2019. The cases arose from two complaints by solicitors about Ms Houston contacting their clients directly. A disciplinary tribunal found in 2014 that her conduct in the second complaint breached professional standards. It later issued advice telling her not to engage with previous or existing clients in that way, or otherwise contrary to the Bar’s Code of Conduct. The Appeals Board upheld the finding and described the measure as “very mild”.
Ms Houston’s consolidated claims included allegations of anti-competitive conduct, defamation, assault and unlawful disciplinary procedures. She also challenged the refusal to issue her a Certificate of Good Standing after she did not pay Law Library subscription fees. These were her claims; the court’s decision concerned whether the evidence she presented was sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
The defendants applied to dismiss the actions after Ms Houston completed her evidence. The judge considered the claims on the basis that her case was at its height, but concluded that the evidence could not reasonably support the allegations. He dismissed the competition claims, finding that she had provided no evidence identifying the market affected or supporting her allegations of anti-competitive conduct. He dismissed the defamation claims, concluding that the statements she challenged were made on occasions of qualified privilege and that she had offered no evidence of malice. He also found insufficient evidence to support assault or intentional infliction of emotional distress, noting that she said she had suffered no personal injury and had not produced the text message on which her assault claim relied.
The court also rejected her claims concerning the Certificate of Good Standing and the disciplinary procedures. It found she had agreed to the Bar’s rules and that her unpaid subscriptions meant she was not entitled to the certificate. The court held that the procedures were based on contract and that she had not provided evidence that they were unfair. The judge did not refer any question to the Court of Justice of the European Union; he said the issue was moot after Ms Houston did not make a formal application, and that there was no basis for a referral.
At a later hearing on 23 July 2019, the judge refused Ms Houston’s application for him to recuse himself, saying the judgment had already been delivered and his remaining function was to make final orders. Costs were awarded against her, with the order stayed pending appeal. The defendants were given liberty to apply to prevent future proceedings against them. The judgment records that the defendants’ counsel estimated their legal costs at about €500,000 on the second day of a seven-day hearing; the final figure was described as likely to be higher.