Miley v. Flood [2001] IEHC 9; [2001] 2 IR 50; [2001] 1 ILRM 489 (24th January, 2001)

Miley v. Flood [2001] IEHC 9; [2001] 2 IR 50; [2001] 1 ILRM 489 (24th January, 2001)

The identity of persons instructing a solicitor is not protected by legal professional privilege under Irish law unless disclosure of identity would reveal confidential communications seeking legal advice. The Tribunal followed fair procedures and provided sufficient information to the applicant regarding the basis for its request.

Citation
[2001] IEHC 9
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Miley; Respondent: The Tribunal (Respondent); Notice Party: Law Society of Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused; declaratory relief denied.
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Privilege, Procedural Fairness, Disclosure of Client Identity, Tribunal Procedures
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Legal Professional Privilege Solicitor Client Privilege Procedural Fairness Disclosure of Client Identity Tribunal Procedures

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Miley

Applicant

The Tribunal (Respondent)

Respondent

Law Society of Ireland

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal was wrong in law to hold that the identity of persons instructing the applicant is not protected by solicitor/client privilege
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to follow fair procedures by not furnishing adequate factual basis for its request

Ratio Decidendi

The identity of persons instructing a solicitor is not protected by legal professional privilege under Irish law unless disclosure of identity would reveal confidential communications seeking legal advice. The Tribunal followed fair procedures and provided sufficient information to the applicant regarding the basis for its request.

Court Disposition

Application refused; declaratory relief denied.

Orders

  • No order for discovery granted.
  • Tribunal's determination upheld; applicant not entitled to claim privilege over identity of instructing persons.