A solicitor who sued the King’s Inns over not awarding him a barrister degree after he passed the relevant exams, paid fees of €12,330 and ate the “requisite number of dinners” there, did not serve his legal claim within the required one-year time limit, a High Court judge has ruled.
Because the plenary summons, the initiating document for Peter Downey’s proceedings, was served about six days outside the one-year time limit, that service was set aside on Monday by Mr Justice Denis McDonald.
Under the rules of the King’s Inns, a person cannot practise at the same time both as a solicitor and a barrister.
Mr Downey completed the two-year, part-time barrister-at-law degree course at the King’s Inns between 2008 and 2010.
He initiated proceedings in October 2016 against the Council, Honourable Society and Education Committee of the King’s Inns over their refusal to award him the degree of barrister at law.
He claimed there was nothing to prevent him being awarded that degree notwithstanding he is a solicitor.
His counsel had told the High Court Mr Downey does not intend to practise as a barrister but, having been accepted for the two-year barrister-at-law degree, paid total fees of €12,330, passed the examinations and assessments, and eaten the requisite number of dinners at the King’s Inns, he was entitled to be conferred with the degree.
12-month limit
The King’s Inns side brought a preliminary application seeking orders setting aside service on it of the plenary summons – the initiating document for the claim — on grounds that was not served within the 12-month limit.
Mr Downey, represented by Séamus Ó Tuathail SC, opposed the preliminary application.
In his judgment on Monday, Mr Justice Denis McDonald made an order setting aside service of the plenary summons on the King’s Inns.
The summons was issued on October 4th, 2016, which meant it had to be served by October 3rd, 2017, the judge said. It was posted on October 4th, 2017, and was received by the King’s Inns on October 9th, 2017, and was out of time.
The judge also accepted the entry of an appearance in the proceedings on behalf of King’s Inns on November 6th, 2017, was due to a mistake by a law firm in that it was unaware of an earlier decision that another firm would be instructed to enter only a conditional appearance.
‘Model of clarity’
Emails from the defendants to Mr Downey’s side in November 2017 concerning the proposal to change the defendants’ appearance from an unconditional to a conditional one were not a “model of clarity” and Mr Downey should also have been told it was intended to apply to set aside service of the summons, he said.
He was satisfied this “relatively short” period did not prejudice Mr Downey’s ability to apply to renew the summons as his side knew from late November 2017 that the defence intended to apply to have the original summons set aside, the judge held.
The judge said he believed Mr Downey should be entitled to costs arising from the mistaken entry of appearance but he would adjourn costs issues to allow the sides consider his judgment.
