O'Connor v Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd and ors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham C.J.,Clarke J.,MacMenamin J.
• Judgment Date: 23 June 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 73
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 23 June 2017

[2017] IESCDET 73

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Denham C.J.

Clarke J.

MacMenamin J.

BETWEEN

PATRICK O'CONNOR

PLAINTIFF

AND

BANK OF SCOTLAND (IRELAND) LIMITED

BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC

MICHAEL COTTER

AND

LUKE CHARLETON

TRADING AS ERNST & YOUNG

MICHAEL COTTER TRADING AS ERNST & YOUNG

ERNST

AND

YOUNG

JAMES RIORDAN

AND

DARREN O'KEEFFE

TRADING AS JAMES RIORDAN AND PARTNERS

AND

JAMES RIORDAN

AND

DARREN O'KEEFFE TRADING AS

M.J. HORGAN & SONS

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 to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal.

REASONS GIVEN:

1. Jurisdiction

1 This determination relates to an application made in person by the plaintiff in the underlying proceedings (‘Mr. O'Connor’) for leave to appeal, under Art. 34.5.3 of the Constitution, from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Finlay Geoghegan, Peart and Binchy JJ) delivered on the 10th February, 2017. The order appealed against was made on the 6th March, 2017 and perfected on the 13th March, 2017. As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interest of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.

2 The Court considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is 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, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

2. The Proceedings

3 The backdrop to these proceedings is that Mr. O'Connor, who has been described as an experienced property developer, defaulted on loans which he had secured from the first named defendant (which has since merged with the second named defendant so that both will be referred to as ‘BOS’) for the purchase of development land. In these proceedings the High Court, Mr. O'Connor challenged BOS's appointment of the third and fourth named defendants (‘the receivers’) as joint receivers. In addition Mr. O'Connor sought to prevent BOS from otherwise enforcing the loans in question. Mr. O'Connor also sued the remaining defendants (who are solicitors) for negligence ( [2012] No. 12108 P). BOS separately sued Mr. O'Connor for its debt ( [2012 No. 4449 S). In a single judgment delivered on the 20th February, 2015, the High Court (Cregan J.) granted judgment against Mr. O'Connor in the sum of €7,683,999.96 and dismissed the claims made in these proceedings against BOS, the receivers and the solicitors. The issues to be determined in the High Court were narrowed to seven factual disputes identified by the trial judge and agreed to by the parties. It should be noted that there is a separate application for leave to appeal before the Court arising out of the money judgment in favour of BOS...