About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 640
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Max Barrett

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Max Barrett explained that the position contended for by the appellant would “create a never-ending cycle whereby a complaint, if adjudicated upon in a manner not to the satisfaction of one of the parties (which seems the all-but-inevitable consequence of every adjudication) would fall to be recommenced”.

Background

The appellant complained to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) about a solicitor whom she had engaged, with her complaint being upheld by the Complaints Resolution Officer in a decision dated 8 January 2024.

The solicitor successfully applied to a Review Committee of the LSRA for an internal review of the decision. The appellant appealed to the High Court.

Prior to or at the hearing of the appeal, the LSRA acknowledged that there had been a procedural error in how it treated the review application and it consented to the decision being remitted to a newly constituted Committee for a fresh decision. The High Court so directed.

On 14 January 2025, the newly constituted Committee determined that the legal services provided to the appellant by the solicitor were not inadequate and, pursuant to s.62(5)(b) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, remitted the complaint to the LSRA with a direction that the file be closed.

On appeal, the appellant alleged that the Committee failed to invite a submission from her as required under s.62(5) of the 2015 Act, improperly closed her complaint and made a decision that was substantively wrong.

The High Court

Mr Justice Barrett firstly considered the appellant’s contention that the Committee failed to invite her submission, noting: “In point of fact, she was asked by the initial Review Committee on 16th February 2024 to make a statement. By letter of 8th March 2024, Ms Cooney indicated that the basis of her complaint remained as she first stated, and she asked simply that this be done.”

The judge observed that the reconstituted Committee did not ask for further submissions, with the LSRA maintaining that the parties had already been afforded an opportunity to make statements. 

In this regard, the judge explained: “My own sense is that the key element in this is what was ordered by the High Court. It ordered that the matter be reconsidered by a freshly constituted committee. It did not order those matters be recommenced ab initio. The Authority did as the High Court contemplated: it had a freshly constituted committee consider the material that went before the initially constituted committee and arrived at a fresh decision.”

Turning to the second ground of appeal concerning the decision to remit the complaint with a direction that the file be closed, the court noted s.62(5)(b) which states inter alia that “The Review Committee shall consider reviews requested and, having given both the client and the legal practitioner an opportunity to make a statement in writing to it as to why the determination of the Authority under section 60 or 61, as the case may be, was incorrect or unjust, determine the review by…(b) remitting the complaint to the Authority, with such directions as the Review Committee considers appropriate or necessary, to be dealt with again under section 60 or 61, as the case may be”.

The appellant argued that pursuant to s.62(5)(b), the only option open to the Committee was to direct a re-commencement of the entire complaints process.

Mr Justice Barrett disagreed with that contention, finding that if the court were to adopt the reading contended for by the appellant, that would “create a never-ending cycle whereby a complaint, if adjudicated upon in a manner not to the satisfaction of one of the parties (which seems the all-but-inevitable consequence of every adjudication) would fall to be recommenced”.

Moving to consider the question of whether the Committee’s decision was substantively wrong, Mr Justice Barrett highlighted that in L.L. v. Legal Services Regulatory Authority [2023] 6 JIC 1403; [2023] IEHC 315, the court held that an appeal to the High Court is one confined to error on part of the Review Committee.

The judge explained that for the appellant to have succeeded on this ground, she would have had to show that the decision of the Review Committee was vitiated by a serious and significant error or by a series of such errors, and that no such error was established.

Mr Justice Barrett concluded: “I understand why she would feel dissatisfied with the decision of the reconstituted Review Committee: at least one party always walks away from an adjudication process feeling disappointed in the outcome. However, for the reasons stated, I do not consider that the decision of the reconstituted Review Committee is tainted in any way by error.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Breda Cooney v Legal Services Regulatory Authority [2025] IEHC 640