A.C. A Ward of Court

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Irvine J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 03 February 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 9
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2018:000054 A:AP:IE:2017:000232 A:AP:IE:2017:000252 WOC8900

IN THE MATTER OF A.C. A WARD OF COURT

BETWEEN

P.C.

APPLICANT

AND

A.C. (A WARD OF COURT SUING BY HER COMMITTEE PATRICIA HICKEY GENERAL SOLICITOR FOR MINORS AND WARDS OF COURT)

RESPONDENT

[2020] IESCDET 9

Clarke C.J.

Irvine J.

Baker J.

S:AP:IE:2018:000054

A:AP:IE:2017:000140

A:AP:IE:2017:000232

A:AP:IE:2017:000252

WOC8900

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

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

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

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 14th March 2018

DATE OF ORDERS: 14th March 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDERS: 14th March 201 THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 11 April 2018 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 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 Thirty-third 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 Quinn Insurance Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. 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. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice 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.

3 In that context, it should be noted that the respondent does oppose the grant of leave.

Decision

4 This application for leave to appeal arises out of the same general circumstances as were the subject of the unanimous judgment of this Court delivered by O'Malley J. in A.C. & ors v. Cork University Hospital & ors and A.C. & ors v. Fitzpatrick & ors ...