About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 181
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Anthony Barr

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Anthony Barr emphasised: “The fact that such a Draconian measure is described as a ‘pause’, does not disguise the fact that it is a decision by the respondent to effectively put a solicitor on suspension due to the making of a complaint by a third party to the LSRA, which complaint may or may not be well-founded. That is not the role of the respondent.”

Background

The applicant, a practising solicitor and the sole remaining partner of his firm, assisted clients wishing to secure a visa under the Immigrant Investor Programme (IIP) which ran from 2012 until 2023 and which provided high net worth non-EU nationals with the opportunity to apply for a visa and to enter and reside in the State if they could establish that they had invested a sum of €500,000 to €1 million in an approved investment project.

When the IIP scheme was shut down, existing projects and applications were permitted to run through the system.

In or about September 2024, a Mr O’Lionscaigh, on behalf of a number of Chinese investors who had invested in a project run by Trinity Homes Ltd (THL), made a complaint to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA). Mr O’Lionscaigh further informed the LSRA that he had made a complaint to gardaí.

Mr O’Lionscaigh alleged that a former partner in the applicant’s firm had misrepresented that McGuire Project Management (MPM), an entity which acted as agent in relation to the project, was owned by a Mr Le Compte when in fact it was the former partner who was named as sole director of the company.

Mr O’Lionscaigh also complained that MPM had signed an agreement with THL whereby that entity would pay MPM a fee of €1.1m for acting as agent in relation to the investment, which he alleged constituted fraud.

The applicant denied that there had been any misrepresentation to any investors and that there was any misconduct on part of the former partner, on his own part or on part of any employee in the firm.

On 15 November 2024, the respondent sent an email to the applicant informing him that while the matter was under investigation by the LSRA and other relevant authorities, the processing of all applications made through his firm would be paused.

The applicant was granted leave to proceed by way of judicial review to challenge the legality of the respondent’s decision in February 2025.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from implementing its decision to suspend applications lodged on behalf of his clients under the IIP pending the trial of the judicial review proceedings.

The High Court

Mr Justice Barr considered the submissions of the parties, agreeing with the applicant that contrary to the respondent’s arguments, the injunction sought was prohibitory in nature and so the applicant was required to establish that he had a fair or serious issue to be tried.

The judge was also satisfied that in any event, the applicant had a strong case that the November 2024 decision was deficient in circumstances where the respondent failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to make representations prior to making its decision and where the suspension could materially affect his right to earn a livelihood and/or his right to his good name.

As to the balance of justice, the court was satisfied that same weighed in favour of the applicant where his IIP work counted for around 50 per cent of his firm’s income and where he would lose that income until the trial, and where he would likely lose any ancillary business connected with the high net worth clients, a loss into the future which was unquantifiable.

The court also reasoned that in circumstances where up to 400 projects were yet to proceed through the system, the applicant would likely not only lose existing clients but would also lose an unknown number of future clients in a competitive market.

Mr Justice Barr was satisfied that “when a solicitor loses a significant market share that he has built up over a long period of time, it would be very difficult for him to make up that ground and win back that market share from other solicitors, if he were to be successful at the trial of the action”, finding that the applicant’s losses would be irremediable in damages.

The High Court was not persuaded that the respondent would suffer any appreciable loss or harm by the grant of the relief sought, notwithstanding its argument that it is vital that the IIP scheme be seen to be transparent and “above reproach from a financial point of view”.

In this regard, the court highlighted that “it is important to note that the respondent does not allege that the applicant, or his previous partner in the firm, have done anything wrong in connection with the IIP scheme” and that the fact of the making of a complaint to the LSRA or gardaí does not mean that there is a credible complaint or any wrongdoing, or that the person the subject of the complaint is converted into a guilty person.

Mr Justice Barr noted: “The action of the respondent in refusing to deal with the applicant as a solicitor for an indefinite period until the LSRA, or the gardaí, have concluded whatever investigation they may carry out into the complaint, is effectively a decision by the respondent that the applicant cannot act as a solicitor in a defined area of work for an indefinite time.”

The judge concluded: “The fact that such a Draconian measure is described as a ‘pause’, does not disguise the fact that it is a decision by the respondent to effectively put a solicitor on suspension due to the making of a complaint by a third party to the LSRA, which complaint may or may not be well-founded. That is not the role of the respondent.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court granted the injunction sought.

Jonathan Cosgrove practising under the style and title of Aidan T Stapleton Solicitors v The Minister for Justice & Anor [2025] IEHC 181