An allegation of deceit is being made against the solicitor who represented haemophiliacs at the hepatitis C tribunal, Mr Raymond Bradley, by a former partner, the High Court was told yesterday.
The allegation led to what was described by Mr Justice Kelly as a "a most unfortunate episode" when Mr Bradley's partner, Mr Frank Lanigan, during the course of yesterday's hearing, said that it was intended to issue legal proceedings against Mr Roddy Horan BL, the barrister representing the former partner. Mr Lanigan said he would also be seeking an order to restrain the reporting of the proceedings.
The incident occurred during the course of the hearing of an application brought by Mr Bradley, Mr Lanigan and their firm of Malcolmson Law, which has offices in Dublin and Carlow, to stay legal proceedings issued against them by their former partner, Mr John Aylmer, Newbridge, Co Kildare.
Mr Aylmer is seeking a declaration that his former partners repudiated a consultancy agreement which he entered into as a retiring partner in July 2000.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly rejected an application by the defendants that the dispute with Mr Aylmer should be settled by way of arbitration proceedings. He said Mr Aylmer's action should continue before the High Court. He granted a stay in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Kelly said it appeared that Mr Aylmer believed Mr Bradley never forgave him for his opposition to Mr Bradley being made a partner. Mr Bradley won the retainer to represent the Irish Haemophilia Society at the hepatitis C tribunal and this resulted in a Dublin office being set up. Tensions arose in the practice and it became apparent that Mr Bradley was anxious to terminate the partnership agreement with Mr Aylmer. An agreement was entered into between Mr Aylmer, Mr Bradley and Mr Lanigan.
Mr Aylmer's solicitors wrote on August 28th, 2002, claiming a breach of the agreement with Mr Aylmer; alleged that Mr Aylmer entered into the agreement on the basis of misrepresentation and "on foot of deceit and/or as a consequence of conspiracy. . ." The letter was addressed to Mr Bradley.
Mr Justice Kelly said there was little doubt the letter had alleged deceit against Mr Bradley and there was a letter of refutation in response. He was satisfied that the allegations of fraud by Mr Aylmer were made bona fide and he refused an application for a stay.