The High Court has dismissed James Breen’s appeal against a decision by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that no prima facie case had been established for an inquiry into alleged misconduct by solicitor John Gerard Murphy.
The appeal concerned a land registration application for property claimed by the Health Service Executive (HSE). Breen alleged that an affidavit sent to the Land Registry on 18 April 2005 falsely stated that the HSE was in undisputed possession, despite a dispute with him and an interlocutory injunction allowing him to use the land.
Murphy accepted before the Tribunal that the application relied on an incorrect statement in an affidavit sworn by Thomas Byrne. He said it was an error made while Circuit Court proceedings were under way, and denied that the statement was forged or falsified. The judgment records that the error had been acknowledged in the earlier court proceedings. Murphy later wrote to the Property Registration Authority asking it to undo the registration because of the affidavit error, and subsequently notified it of the High Court outcome.
The Tribunal found there was no evidence that the false information was reckless or intended to deceive. Breen appealed, maintaining that the statement was deliberately deceitful and reckless. He also complained that Murphy had not been required to give evidence, while he had been questioned and cross-examined.
Delivering judgment on 19 July 2010, President of the High Court Kearns said the alleged misconduct had been fully investigated in the Circuit Court, the High Court and by the Tribunal. He found that Breen’s appeal affidavit disclosed no fresh fact or new material that would justify disturbing the Tribunal’s decision. The court noted that errors in legal work can occur without negligence or fraud, and considered this to be such a case.
The court dismissed the appeal. It did not order a further disciplinary inquiry. The judgment also records that Breen had lost his underlying adverse-possession claim against the HSE in both the Circuit Court and the High Court.