Allied Irish Banks Plc v Aqua Fresh Fish Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Denham C.J.,Clarke J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 06 July 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 76
• Date: 06 July 2017

BETWEEN

ALLIED IRISH BANKS PLC

PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT

AND

AQUA FRESH FISH LIMITED

DEFENDANT / APPLICANT

[2017] IESCDET 76

Denham C.J.

Clarke J.

O'Malley J.

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES.

Result: The Court grants leave to the applicant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Reasons given:

1 The applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of the Court of Appeal (see Allied Irish Banks plc v. Aqua Fresh Fish Limited [2017] IECA 77).

2 The notices filed by the applicant and respondent are available on this website and will not be summarised here. Despite the greatly excessive length of the applicant's notice, it is clear that the sole issue in the application is whether or not Mr. Adrian Flynn should have been permitted to represent the interests of the applicant company in the substantive proceedings brought against it by the bank. In those proceedings the bank seeks an order for possession and, if necessary, the sale of certain property mortgaged to the bank by the company. The basis for that claim is an alleged default on payment of a loan.

3 Mr. Flynn is the managing director and, he says, the 100% owner of the company. He has averred that it does not have the funds to engage legal representation, and that he should have been permitted to represent it by way of exception to the rule established in Battle v. Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd [1968] I.R. 252. He also avers that the company has a defence to the bank's proceedings. There has not been a full examination of the merits of that defence, but in the High Court judgment (see [2015] IEHC 184) the view was expressed that it did not appear to be a real, arguable defence or have a reasonable chance of success. However, the key finding in the Court of Appeal was that the case did not fall into the category of rare and exceptional cases that would warrant a departure from the rule set out in Battle, and that that Court was bound by that decision.

Decision

4 The Court also considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised and the facts underpinning them meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances,...