Toal -v- The Honourable Society of Kings Inn Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal & Ors [2016] IECA 139 (22 April 2016)

Toal -v- The Honourable Society of Kings Inn Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal & Ors [2016] IECA 139 (22 April 2016)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant, with legal advice, indicated he would not pursue the appeal, rendering it redundant. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss for want of prosecution, noting no contest or resistance from the appellant.

Citation
[2016] IECA 139
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Alan P. Toal; 1st Named Respondent/defendant: The Honourable Society of Kings Inns Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal; 2nd Named Respondent/defendant: The General Council of the Bar Council of Ireland; 3rd Named Respondent/defendant: The Professional Practices Committee of the Bar Council; 4th Named Respondent/defendant: The Barristers Professional Conduct Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Bias, Recusal, Disciplinary Proceedings, Appeal Dismissal, European Convention on Human Rights
Professional Discipline Administrative Law Procedural Law Judicial Bias Recusal Disciplinary Proceedings Appeal Dismissal European Convention on Human Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan P. Toal

Appellant/plaintiff

The Honourable Society of Kings Inns Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal

1st Named Respondent/defendant

The General Council of the Bar Council of Ireland

2nd Named Respondent/defendant

The Professional Practices Committee of the Bar Council

3rd Named Respondent/defendant

The Barristers Professional Conduct Tribunal

4th Named Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal judges' status as Benchers constitutes objective bias
  3. 3 Whether the High Court judge should have recused himself

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant, with legal advice, indicated he would not pursue the appeal, rendering it redundant. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss for want of prosecution, noting no contest or resistance from the appellant.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mr. Toal to pay respondents' costs of the appeal, costs of the motions, and any reserved costs, to be taxed in default of agreement