The Supreme Court has concluded the costs issue in solicitor Barry Sheehan’s appeal, making no order as to costs between him and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for the Supreme Court proceedings. The Court also directed that costs orders previously made in the Tribunal’s favour in the High Court and Court of Appeal be vacated. The underlying finding of misconduct against Sheehan remains in place.
The ruling, delivered on 4 May 2022, followed two Supreme Court judgments in the case, issued on 16 September 2021 and 17 February 2022. The remaining issue was how costs should be dealt with after the appeal proceedings concluded. The parties agreed that the Court could decide the costs issue on written submissions without another oral hearing.
Sheehan sought costs for a number of hearings in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. He accepted that the Tribunal should receive the costs of the Supreme Court hearing that led to the February 2022 judgment, when he lost on the substance of his arguments. The Tribunal sought its costs of the Supreme Court proceedings and lower-court proceedings, while accepting that no costs order would be preferable to an order in Sheehan’s favour if the Court rejected its position.
The dispute arose from the Tribunal’s finding that Sheehan had committed misconduct in dealings with the Binghams concerning their file. In his statutory appeal, Sheehan argued that he could raise issues about whether the matter was barred as res judicata and whether a statutory “gateway” provision applied. The High Court and Court of Appeal rejected his arguments about the scope of the appeal and dismissed his challenge to the misconduct finding.
The Supreme Court’s September 2021 judgment held that Sheehan could raise the res judicata and gateway issues in the statutory appeal. The Court then considered those issues on their merits. In its February 2022 judgment, it rejected them, leaving the misconduct finding undisturbed. The Court’s May ruling noted that Sheehan succeeded on the scope of the statutory appeal but ultimately failed to overturn the finding.
The Court said it was not appropriate to award Sheehan costs against the Tribunal for the High Court proceedings. It also directed that the Tribunal’s costs orders in the lower courts be vacated, because it had opposed Sheehan’s entitlement to raise the arguments that the Supreme Court later held he could raise, even though those arguments failed on their merits.
As between Sheehan and the Binghams, the Court made no costs order for the Supreme Court proceedings, in line with their agreement. Earlier High Court and Court of Appeal costs orders in the Binghams’ favour remain in place. The Law Society and Sheehan had agreed that there should be no costs order between them for proceedings at all three court levels.
The Court’s final costs order was that there be no order as to costs between Sheehan and the Tribunal in the Supreme Court.