High Court, in an appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal arising from long-running litigation relating to a loan to redevelop a petrol station and supermarket, finds no basis to overturn the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s finding that there is no prima facie case for an inquiry into the conduct of the solicitor.
Appeal against the finding of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that there is no prima facie case for an inquiry into the conduct of the solicitor - complaint of alleged misconduct – alleged that the solicitor who was retained by Allied Irish Banks plc (“AIB”) and the Receiver over a company of which the appellants were directors, engaged in alleged misconduct – alleged that they interfered with evidence presented to court – issued proceedings against a solicitors firm in order to intimidate and undermine the defence evidence - applied to register in the Property Registration Authority a legal document that had been interfered with by the respondent after its proper execution – lodged a document in the PRA they had no authority or power to lodge - withheld documents on discovery – SDT found that there was no prima facie case of misconduct on the part of the respondent to merit an inquiry – borrowed money from the bank for the redevelopment of a supermarket and the rebuilding of the petrol station - defaulted on its payment obligations – receiver appointed - in the context of making arrangements for the sale of the premises, complications emerged in relation to the security held by AIB – High Court found that the Receiver was entitled to a declaration that the appellants were not entitled to enter on or use the lands or premises in question and that the Receiver was also entitled to a declaration that the appellants had granted an irrevocable licence to the Company to occupy such part of the lands as was retained in the legal ownership of the appellants - Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision – brought 2 sets of further proceedings against the receiver – struck out on the grounds that they were an attempt to relitigate – Isaac Wunder order – definition of “misconduct” - manually coloured in red an outline on a map – not a sufficient basis upon which to raise a prima facie case of misconduct - SDT properly found that the issuing by AIB of the writ cannot be construed as misconduct - a tactical decision on the part of one side to litigation as to who to call to give evidence cannot give rise to a complaint – no evidence on the face of the judgment that the Judge was misled – solicitor had given a reasonable explanation for the date having been inserted into the Lease and for the attachment of a Land Registry compliant map - the failure of AIB to make discovery of the email could have been addressed before the High Court.