The Supreme Court has dismissed solicitor Maurice O’Callaghan’s challenge to the procedure used by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in a misconduct case arising from the handling of a personal injury claim.
The Tribunal had found allegations against Mr O’Callaghan proved and found him guilty of misconduct. A majority of two members recommended that his name be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, while a third member favoured a censure and £5,000 fine. The Tribunal also unanimously recommended costs of £500 or such sum as might be taxed.
Mr O’Callaghan challenged the decision by judicial review. The High Court refused relief and he appealed to the Supreme Court on two procedural grounds.
First, he argued that Walter Beatty should not have participated in the full disciplinary inquiry because he had also sat on the Tribunal division which initially decided that there was a prima facie case requiring investigation. Mr Justice Geoghegan rejected that argument. He held that the preliminary decision merely determined whether a serious case had been presented and was fundamentally different from deciding the allegations after a full inquiry. There was therefore no unfairness or unlawful bias in Mr Beatty participating at both stages.
Second, Mr O’Callaghan argued that the Tribunal itself should formally have notified him of the complaint before deciding whether an inquiry was warranted.
The Supreme Court accepted that natural justice generally requires a professional facing possible disciplinary proceedings to know the complaint and have an opportunity to answer it before the preliminary decision. However, the court held that there was no technical requirement for the notice to come directly from the Tribunal.
The Law Society had already sent Mr O’Callaghan the complaint, he had responded, and that correspondence was before the Tribunal when it considered whether there was a prima facie case.
The court therefore found that the requirements of natural justice had been satisfied and dismissed the appeal.