High Court dismisses appeal against Tribunal's finding of no prima facie case of solicitor misconduct due to lack of evidence.
Irland (IE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's decision that no prima facie case of misconduct existed against the respondent solicitor. The appellant alleged serious misconduct including corruption, fraud, and perjury regarding a property dispute, but the Tribunal rejected these claims due to a total absence of corroborating evidence. The Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling, noting that the appellant's affidavits provided no new material to substantiate the serious allegations made.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertSolicitors Act 1954 to 2008; Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: Where the Tribunal finds no prima facie case of misconduct due to lack of evidence, an appeal to the High Court will be dismissed if the appellant fails to adduce new material corroborating the allegations.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVolltext
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] IEHC 158
THE HIGH COURT
2011 12 SA
IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACTS 1954 TO 2008
BETWEEN
DAVID GARVEY
APPELLANT
AND
MATTHEW J. NANGLE
SOLICITOR/RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT of Kearns P. delivered on the 11th day of April, 2011
This is an appeal by David Garvey (“the appellant”) against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 9th
February 2011, that there is no prima facie case of misconduct on the part of Matthew J. Nangle, of Matthew J. Nangle & Co.,
Broadview House, Westend, Mallow, Co. Cork (“the respondent solicitor”).
In the application to the Tribunal for an inquiry into the conduct of the respondent solicitor on the grounds of misconduct, the
appellant alleged, inter alia, that: the respondent solicitor unduly influenced Cork County Council to include Ballyhoura Lodge in its
development plan as a protected structure and the idea was dropped; the respondent solicitor is a corrupt solicitor; John and Eithne
Murtagh and family were subjected to a series of court cases by the respondent solicitor in an attempt to dispossess them of
Ballyhoura Lodge; the respondent solicitor was aware that Mary Rose O’Connell had no rights to Ballyhoura Lodge and therefore should
not have granted the Murtaghs a lease; the respondent solicitor misled the Law Society, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the
High Court; the respondent solicitor was responsible for the theft and fraud of Ballyhoura Lodge, and that the respondent solicitor
committed perjury in affidavit evidence.
Each of the allegations made by the appellant against the respondent solicitor was rejected by the Tribunal because of absence of
evidence on which the Tribunal could form a view that there is a prima facie case for inquiry in respect of the particular allegation.
I have carefully reviewed the file as well as the affidavits of the appellant sworn on 23rd February 2011, and the respondent solicitor,
sworn on 9th March 2011. Nothing in the affidavit grounding the appeal of the appellant discloses any new material or information to
corroborate the allegations he makes against the respondent solicitor.
There is no evidence before the Court that the respondent solicitor has misconducted himself in any way, therefore there is no finding
of misconduct against the respondent solicitor.
I dismiss the application.