BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> O'Mahony -v- O'Neill [2007] IEHC 357 (26 October 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2007/H357.html Cite as: [2007] IEHC 357 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Judgment Title: O'Mahony -v- O'Neill Composition of Court: Johnson. P. Judgment by: Johnson. P. Status of Judgment: Approved |
HIGH COURT 2007 - 35SA [2007] IEHC 357 SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF MS. JOAN O’NEILL A SOLICITOR OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND, BLACKHALL PLACE, DUBLIN 7 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY T.C. GERARD O’MAHONY FROM A RULING OF THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACTS 1954 TO 2002 BETWEEN:- T.C. GERARD O’MAHONY APPLICANT/APPELLANT -AND- JOAN O’NEILL RESPONDENT Judgment of Johnson P. delivered on the 26th day of October, 2007 This is an appeal from a ruling of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society in respect of complaints and allegations made by the appellant/applicant herein T.C. Gerard O’Mahony regarding the conduct of the respondent Ms. Joan O’Neill, Solicitor. The allegations were that as a result of a number of alleged incidents between the applicant and the Law Society that the respondent had been guilty of misconduct. After a full hearing in front of the Tribunal, and after considering the affidavits lodged therein and the submissions made; the Tribunal in their Ruling to which I will refer, dismissed the application of Mr. O’Mahony and confirmed that there was no prima facie case of misconduct on the part of the respondent for inquiry in respect of each and every one of the allegations set out therein. Over a period of two days I have (a) considered the papers in this matter (b) read the affidavits of Mr. O’Mahony, Ms. O’Neill and Mr. Brendan Cook of Cyril O’Neill & Company, Cost Drawers and (c) I have had the benefit of the evidence and submissions of Mr. O’Mahony and the evidence of Ms. O’Neill together with the submissions of counsel on behalf of Ms. O’Neill. As a result of my deliberations I find that I would not change a single word of the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal. It is quite clear to me that Mr. O’Mahony considers he is in some way being hard done by however, in my view Ms. O’Neill has had nothing whatsoever to do with any matter about which Mr. O’Mahony feels a grievance. Further in my view on the evidence before me there does not appear to be any reason why Mr. O’Mahony should feel a grievance. Ms. O’Neill in the witness box gave clear cogent and decisive evidence regarding every aspect of her participation in this business. Whereas subjected to a long a repetitive cross-examination she demonstrated in the face of it fortitude, serenity and truthfulness. In my view Ms. O’Neill is the person who in this case is entitled to feel hard done by because of the entirely unfounded allegations made against her by Mr. O’Mahony. I endorse and repeat the full findings of the Tribunal which I will repeat hereunder with the only variation being that in addition to the affidavit and the papers already lodged I also rely on the evidence which was heard by me in the course of the case. The allegations are set out as follows: (a) That a bill of cost, was prepared by Cyril O’Neill and Company, Cost Drawers, on 9th November, 1999 on the instructions of the respondent solicitor and was taxed by Taxing Master Moran on the 2nd February, 2000 in the applicant’s absence and without his knowledge or authorised representation in the sum of £10,174.48;
(c) The applicant says that the respondent solicitor was advised by him of said wrongful matters by letter dated 3rd April 2000.
(d) The applicant says that notwithstanding the forgoing the respondent solicitor proceeded to register the defective judgment in Stubbs Gazette and subsequently as a Judgment Mortgage against the applicant’s residence.
(f) That the respondent solicitor has refused to furnish the applicant with the information to which he is entitled by virtue of his right thereto by virtue of the legal authority set out in paragraph 8 above.
(h) That the respondent solicitor was aware at all relevant times of ill will or male fides experienced by him in dealing with the Society since 1998 in his endeavouring to bring same to the attention of the Society fundamental financial matters detrimentally effecting the prudent economic running of the Society;
(i) That the respondent solicitor used her position to take unfair advantage of the applicant either on her own behalf or on behalf of others and same was contrary to her duty as an officer of the court.
(j) That the respondent solicitor did not observe the good faith and frankness expected by a member of the solicitors’ profession and that furthermore she did not observe the good manners and courtesy expected of such a member towards another member of the profession.
As stated having accepted these findings without qualification and having added my own views on the matter thereby dismiss the appeal of Mr. O’Mahony. |
