Swaine -v-The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal & ors [2016] IEHC 667 (15 November 2016)

Swaine -v-The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal & ors [2016] IEHC 667 (15 November 2016)

Judicial review is not available where a full statutory appeal lies and is capable of addressing all complaints; no fundamental error or prejudice was shown in the Tribunal's process; the applicant's claims are matters for appeal, not judicial review; the claim against the Law Society was misconceived and an abuse of process.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 667
Parties
Applicant: Owen Swaine; First Named Respondent: The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; Second Named Respondent: The Law Society of Ireland; Notice Party: Henry Greally
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Solicitors' Misconduct, Statutory Appeals, Procedural Fairness, Abuse of Process
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Judicial Review Solicitors' Misconduct Statutory Appeals Procedural Fairness Abuse of Process

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Owen Swaine

Applicant

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

First Named Respondent

The Law Society of Ireland

Second Named Respondent

Henry Greally

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the findings and procedures of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal were unlawful or unfair
  2. 2 Whether judicial review is appropriate where a statutory appeal is available
  3. 3 Whether the applicant suffered prejudice from amendment of charges

Ratio Decidendi

Judicial review is not available where a full statutory appeal lies and is capable of addressing all complaints; no fundamental error or prejudice was shown in the Tribunal's process; the applicant's claims are matters for appeal, not judicial review; the claim against the Law Society was misconceived and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application refused