County Council of the County of Wicklow v Whelan, Enright & Enright
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,Charleton J. |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IESCDET 114 |
| Docket Number | S:AP:IE:2017:000168 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 27 July 2018 |
[2018] IESCDET 114
THE SUPREME COURT
Clarke C.J.
MacMenamin J.
Charleton J.
S:AP:IE:2017:000168
DETERMINATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 56 OF THE RULES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
AND
| REASONS GIVEN: |
| ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED |
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 7th July, 2017 |
| DATE OF ORDERS: 7th July, 2017 and 17th July, 2017 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDERS: 25th September, 2017 and 20th November, 2017 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 19th December, 2017 AND WAS NOT IN TIME. |
The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated in the Constitution as a result of the 33rd Amendment, have now been considered in a large number of determinations, and are fully established in both a determination issued by a panel, consisting of all the members of this Court in BS v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESC DET 134, and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Cooper (A Firm) v. Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. Insofar as applicable, 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] IESC DET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination. Furthermore, the application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice, (as redacted), are published, along with this determination, subject to such redaction required by law, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.
As is clear from the terms of the Constitution, and the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment to the Constitution, 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 interests of justice necessary that there may be an appeal to this Court.
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 as far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The decision is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. Save in the rarest of circumstances, it will not be appropriate to rely upon a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of different cases. Where leave is...
To continue reading
Request your trial