O'Brien v McCormack
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Clarke C.J.,Dunne J.,Irvine J. |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESCDET 261 |
| Docket Number | S:AP:IE:2019:000114 A:AP:IE:2017:000377 2016 No. 5308 P |
| Date | 12 November 2019 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
[2019] IESCDET 261
THE SUPREME COURT
Clarke C.J.
Dunne J.
Irvine J.
S:AP:IE:2019:000114
A:AP:IE:2017:000377
2016 No. 5308 P
AND
AND
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Plaintiff to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal
REASONS GIVEN:
| COURT: Court of Appeal |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 8 thMay, 2019 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 8 thMay, 2019 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 20 thMay, 2019 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 7 thJune, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME. |
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals is set out in the Constitution. As is clear from the terms of Article 34.5.3° thereof and the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty-third Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal, that it be established by the applicant that the decision sought to be appealed involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice that there be an appeal to this Court.
The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the 33 rd Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v. Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
It should be noted that any ruling in a determination is a decision particular to that application and is final and conclusive only as far as the parties are concerned. The issue calling for the Court's consideration is whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria as above identified. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value relative to the substantive issues, if and when such issues should further arise in a different case. Where leave is granted on any issue, that matter will be disposed of in due course in the substantive decision of the Court.
The applications for leave filed, and the respondents' notices thereto, are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in detail. It should however be noted that the applicant has made separate leave applications in relation to the orders made by the Court of Appeal in favour of the respondents, and this determination deals with both applications.
In proceedings entitled Patrick O'Brien v. Galway County Council & FÁS Training and Development Authority (Ireland), High Court Record No. [2001/ 14603 P.], the applicant, Mr Patrick O'Brien (“Mr O'Brien”), commenced proceedings claiming damages in respect of an injury to his back which he maintained he sustained on 28 th January, 2001 when negligently required to throw large stones over a fence. At the time material to his injury, Mr. O'Brien was employed by Galway County Council and was attending a FAS course organised by the second defendant. The defendants to the within proceedings, which were instituted in 2016, were, according to Mr O'Brien, his supervisor and co-workers on the day he sustained his injury.
Mr. O'Brien's personal injuries action was listed for hearing on 6 th May, 2006. In the course of pre-hearing negotiations, it was made known to Mr O'Brien that the defendants herein would deny his account of events concerning the presence of stones at the relevant location. Although O'Brien considered that the defendants were not telling the truth and had another witness available to corroborate his own account of events, concerned about the possible consequences of the evidence that might be given by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial