Judgment: 2011-07-25 · Court archive

High Court dismisses appeal over solicitor misconduct complaint

The court found the disciplinary tribunal could not have considered an affidavit filed after its decision, and said it contained no evidence substantiating misconduct allegations.

The High Court · [2011] IEHC 355

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Kieran McDonagh (Appellant)
  • Damien Tansey
  • Kearns P.
What

The court found the disciplinary tribunal could not have considered an affidavit filed after its decision, and said it contained no evidence substantiating misconduct allegations.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2011, Kearns P. said the tribunal had decided the matter on the affidavits available to it at the time. McDonagh’s affidavit was filed on 27 April 2011, nearly two months after the tribunal’s decision, so it could not have been considered then. The court found no breach of the rules.

The High Court has dismissed Kieran McDonagh’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision that there was no prima facie case of misconduct by solicitor Damien Tansey.

The tribunal made its decision on 3 March 2011, rejecting McDonagh’s allegations as adequately rebutted by Tansey’s affidavit. McDonagh appealed, arguing that his replying affidavit had been excluded in breach of rule 9(a) of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Rules 2003.

In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2011, Kearns P. said the tribunal had decided the matter on the affidavits available to it at the time. McDonagh’s affidavit was filed on 27 April 2011, nearly two months after the tribunal’s decision, so it could not have been considered then. The court found no breach of the rules.

The judge also considered the later affidavit and concluded that, even if the tribunal had considered it, it contained no evidence substantiating the allegations of misconduct. The court agreed with the tribunal’s findings and dismissed the appeal. The judgment records no further order.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review