No extension in legal complaints case

A COUPLE whose complaints about well-known lawyer Gerald Kean were rejected by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, have been refused permission by the High Court to bring an appeal outside the legal time limit.

Counsel for Dajamel Mennad and his wife Fatima Zohra Azizi Mennad yesterday applied to Mr Justice Paul Gilligan for an extension of time within which to appeal against the tribunal's finding that there were no grounds for an inquiry into their 10 other complaints.

Those complaints included allegations that Mr Kean had failed to attend for certain court proceedings and failed to have certain documents with him and also related to fees charged.

The proceedings arose from litigation by the couple concerning the loss of their tenancy of a restaurant in Athlone, a case which went to the Circuit Court.

The couple had claimed they were told they would only have to pay €7,500 if they lost the case but, if they won, it would be €15,000. They said they were charged the higher fee despite losing the case and had paid the €15,000. They later brought their complaints to the Law Society.

Last November, following an inquiry, the solicitors tribunal ruled that Mr Kean was not guilty of professional misconduct in relation to the section 68 complaint, which centred on a letter setting out legal fees of €15,000 which Mr Kean said he sent in August 2003 but which the Mennads claimed they never received.

Yesterday the court heard the couple were more than a year outside the 21-day time limit within which to appeal the tribunal's decision communicated to them on April 2nd, 2007, but their counsel said they, as French citizens, had poor English and did not understand from a letter from the tribunal of April 2nd, 2007, that they had just 21 days to appeal against the decision.

Counsel for Mr Kean said the letter was very clear in its terms and it appeared the Mennads had no difficulty understanding its other contents, including the tribunal's decision that there was a basis for an inquiry into one of the couple's complaints - that Mr Kean had not outlined his fees in writing as required under section 68 of the Solicitors Amendment Act 1994.

A subsequent inquiry of November 2007 into the section 68 complaint resulted in an acquittal by the tribunal of Mr Kean and an appeal against that finding has yet to be heard.

Having heard both sides, Mr Justice Gilligan ruled it would be "inappropriate" to grant an extension of time to permit the couple to appeal against the decision on the 10 other complaints and also awarded costs against the couple to Mr Kean.

The judge said he was satisfied the letter of April 2nd, 2007, was "very clear" that the Mennads had 21 days to appeal against the decision. They worked in the commercial sector and had operated a restaurant in the midlands and the letter was "in plain English", he said.

The Mennads had also represented themselves in the tribunal inquiry into the section 68 complaint. In those circumstances, they could not rely on an element of "mistake" in their understanding of the letter, he ruled.