Law Society of Ireland v Coleman [2018] IESC 80 (21 December 2018)

Law Society of Ireland v Coleman [2018] IESC 80 (21 December 2018)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing the appellant an adjournment, thereby breaching fair procedures and constitutional justice. The refusal deprived the appellant of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against serious allegations and sanctions, including strike off and a substantial restitution order. The orders made by the High Court were set aside and the matters remitted for rehearing.

Citation
[2018] IESC 80
Parties
Applicant/respondent: The Law Society of Ireland; Respondent/appellant: Daniel Coleman
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court Orders on Professional Misconduct and Sanction / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Misconduct, Procedural Fairness, Restitution Orders, Strike Off From Roll, Right to Appeal, Admission of New Evidence
Professional Discipline Legal Profession Regulation Solicitor Misconduct Procedural Fairness Restitution Orders Strike Off From Roll Right to Appeal Admission of New Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Law Society of Ireland

Applicant/respondent

Daniel Coleman

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court Orders on Professional Misconduct and Sanction / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing an adjournment to the appellant and thereby breached fair procedures and constitutional justice
  2. 2 Whether the orders striking the appellant from the Roll of Solicitors and for restitution were lawfully made
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court should admit new evidence or allow enlargement of grounds of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing the appellant an adjournment, thereby breaching fair procedures and constitutional justice. The refusal deprived the appellant of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against serious allegations and sanctions, including strike off and a substantial restitution order. The orders made by the High Court were set aside and the matters remitted for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court orders striking the appellant from the Roll of Solicitors and for restitution set aside
  • Matters remitted to the High Court for rehearing in accordance with fair procedures