The Supreme Court has dismissed solicitor Anne Fitzgibbon’s appeal against a High Court ruling on how her challenge to Law Society sanctions should be heard. It affirmed that the High Court process is a review of the committee’s decision, not a rehearing from the beginning.
Fitzgibbon had appealed findings and sanctions imposed by the Law Society’s Complaints and Client Relations Committee in relation to two complaints. Her appeal to the High Court was brought under section 11(1) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.
A preliminary issue arose over the nature of that High Court hearing. The High Court President ruled in November 2012 that it was a review of a specialist committee’s decision. Oral evidence could be heard if necessary, but the hearing would not be a de novo appeal. Fitzgibbon appealed that ruling and the order awarding the Law Society the costs of the hearing on 7 November 2012.
In the Supreme Court judgment delivered on 29 July 2014, Chief Justice Denham said the committee’s specialist nature was not diminished by its majority of lay members. The Court also rejected the argument that the High Court’s review format failed to protect fair procedures, noting that the committee was required to follow fair procedures and could be subject to judicial review.
The Court held that the earlier directions for witnesses and oral evidence did not conflict with the ruling that the appeal was not a rehearing. The statutory procedure allows oral evidence where the High Court President directs it. It also held that the marginal note calling the process an “appeal” could not be used to interpret the statute, under section 18(g) of the Interpretation Act 2005.
Fitzgibbon had argued that she lacked an adequate opportunity to test evidence before the committee. The Supreme Court said the High Court President had provided for oral evidence and had not yet considered the substance of her appeal, so that ground was premature. The judgment also said the sixth ground was governed by the reasons already given.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court decision and dismissed the appeal. It did not decide the merits of Fitzgibbon’s challenge to the committee’s findings or sanctions; those matters remained for a future hearing before the High Court President.