The High Court has ruled that Brendan Kirwan’s appeals against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision were out of time and granted motions by the respondent solicitors seeking that conclusion.
The judgment, delivered by President of the High Court Ms Justice Irvine on 9 March 2022, concerned two appeals arising from the Tribunal’s 8 October 2020 finding that Mr Kirwan had not established a prima facie case of misconduct against the solicitors. The court considered only whether the appeals were time-barred; it did not decide the substance of the alleged misconduct.
Mr Kirwan had made two complaints in 2019. Among his allegations were that a staff member at M.J. O’Connor Solicitors had been held out to him as a solicitor despite allegedly lacking the required qualifications and insurance, and that information about a proposed land purchase had been withheld, causing him financial loss. These were allegations made by Mr Kirwan, not findings by the High Court. The Tribunal had concluded that he had not established a prima facie case.
The Tribunal’s decision was received by Mr Kirwan on 9 October 2020. He sent appeal papers to a registrar by email and registered post within the 21-day period. The notices of motion were not issued from the High Court Central Office until 21 December 2020, after Justice Irvine gave leave for them to issue in the form presented. She said the papers had been irregular in form and could not have been issued by Central Office staff without the court’s permission.
Mr Kirwan argued that the appeals were effectively lodged when the papers reached the registrar, and that access to justice and the circumstances surrounding their issue justified allowing them to proceed. The respondents argued that the statutory deadline was mandatory and could not be extended.
Justice Irvine followed the High Court’s earlier decision in Curran v Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. She held that the relevant legislation required an appeal to be made within 21 days of receipt of written notification and gave the court no power to extend that time. Sending papers to a registrar did not amount to issuing an originating notice of motion from Central Office.
The ruling did not assess whether the solicitors had engaged in misconduct, nor did it determine whether an extension would have been justified on the facts. The court granted the relief sought in the respondents’ motions, bringing the time-limit issue before it to a close.