Blackall v Grehan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: EGAN. J.
• Judgment Date: 27 November 1995
• Neutral Citation: 1995 WJSC-SC 3875
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 349 of 1991]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 27 November 1995

1995 WJSC-SC 3875

THE SUPREME COURT

Hamilton, C.J.

O'Flaherty, J.

Egan, J.

349/91

BLACKALL v. GREHAN

IN THE MATTER of AN BUNREACHT

AND IN THE MATTER of THE COURTS OF

JUSTICE ACTS 1924 /88.

BETWEEN

EILEEN BLACKALL and ROSE BLACKALL

Applicants

Appellants

and

DONAL GREHAN, JOHN TANSEY and WILLIAM QUINLAN

Respondents

and

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PETER O'MALLEY and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAUL CARNEY

NOTICE PARTIES

Citations:

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1936 S39

VOZZA, STATE V O'FLYNN

Synopsis:

HIGH COURT

Jurisdiction

Exercise - Restriction - Court - Decision - Review - Power - Absence - Decision of one judge of court cannot be reviewed by another judge of court - (349/91 - Supreme Court - 27/11/95)

|Blackall v. Grehan|

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Remedy

Scope - Restriction - High Court - Decision - Review of decision sought from High Court - Decision determined appeal from Circuit Court - Decision of High Court not appealable - Decision not amenable to judicial review - Courts of Justice Act, 1936, s. 39 - (349/91 - Supreme Court - 27/11/95) - [1995] 3 IR 208

|Blackall v. Grehan|

1 JUDGMENT of EGAN. J. delivered the 27th day of November 1995. [NEM DISS]

2 This is an appeal from an Order of Barron J. made on the 2nd December 1991 whereby he refused to make an Order for Judicial review which had been applied for by the Applicants in respect of the Judgment and Order of Carney, J. dated the 15th day of May, 1991. The said order of Carney, J. was made on the hearing by him of an Appeal by the Applicants from an Order of the Circuit Court made by O'Malley, J. on the 29th day of June 1990 whereby inter alia findings and declarations were made as to the boundaries which were in dispute relating to properties owned by the parties to the said suit.

3 The Appeal from the Circuit Court came on for hearing before Carney, J. and he gave judgment on the 15th day of May 1991 in which he ordered and declared "that the dotted line entitled "Townland Boundary" to be the northern boundary line of the respective Plaintiffs" property with the Defendants" property as set out in the Map annexed hereto". (The Respondents had been plaintiffs in the said suit and the Applicants had been defendants).

4 The said Order of Carney, J. sets out that evidence was adduced before him on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Notwithstanding section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, it was argued on behalf of the Applicants that the said Order of the High Court was not conclusive and could be reviewed. Section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, provides as follows:-

"The decision of the High Court or of the High Court or Circuit on an appeal under this part of the Act shall be final and conclusive and not appealable".

5 Dr. O'Toole, however, on behalf of the first-named Applicant argued forcefully that the Order of the High Court was made without jurisdiction and she was ably assisted by the second-named Applicant who appeared on her own behalf. They based this argument on a contention that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to...