Byrne (A Minor) Suing by his father and next friend v O'Conbhui

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 29 March 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 74
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 29 March 2019

[2019] IESCDET 74

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

Charleton J.

O'Malley J.

BETWEEN

SEAN BYRNE (A MINOR) SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND SEAN BYRNE

PLAINTIFF

AND

SEAN O'CONBHUI (OTHERWISE SEAN MACCONBHUI OTHERWISE JOHN CONWAY)

AND

BY ORDER JAMES LEO CONWAY (OTHERWISE SEAN OR OTHERWISE SEAMUS O'CONBHUI OTHERWISE CONWAY)

DEFENDANTS

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

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Plaintiff / Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGEMENT OR RULING: 9th March, 2018

DATE OF ORDER: 9th March, 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 30th May, 2018

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 27th June, 2018 AND WAS IN TIME.

REASONS GIVEN:

1 1. This application for leave to appeal was referred to the Court under the terms of paragraph 8(d) of Practice Direction SC16. The applicant, Mr. Sean Ó Conbhuí, has failed to comply with the requirement to lodge the specified number of copies of the papers. In response to queries from the office of the Supreme Court, he stated that he was unable to comply in the absence of legal assistance.

2 The Court does not accept that legal assistance is in any way necessary for compliance with this particular requirement. Accordingly, it would be open to the Court to dismiss the application for leave on this ground alone.

3 In the event, the Court has considered the merits of the application on the basis of the papers filed.

4 The dispute between the parties arises from a personal injuries action concerning a five-year old child who sustained an injury while playing on the applicant's land in 1996. The infant plaintiff succeeded in the action, and damages and costs were awarded against the applicant. Following protracted appeals, the taxation of those costs was ruled upon by the Taxing Master in 2013. The applicant objected to the initial ruling on the basis inter alia that he was an environmentalist and was therefore entitled to the benefit of the Aarhus Convention.

5 The judgments of the High Court and Court of appeal can be found at [2016] IEHC 219 and [2018] IECA 57 respectively.

6 The issues which the applicant seeks to bring before the Court are the questions of whether he was entitled to expert assistance in a hearing before the Taxing Master, and whether he was...