Defender Ltd v HSBC
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O’Malley J.,Clarke C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESCDET 183 |
| Date | 31 July 2019 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000027 High Court record no: 2013 No. 12439 P (2013 177 COM) |
[2019] IESCDET 183
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
Clarke C.J.
O’Malley J.
Irvine J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000027
High Court record no: 2013 No. 12439 P (2013 177 COM)
AND
RESULT : The Court grants leave to the Plaintiff to appeal and to the Defendant to cross appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 4 th December 2018 and 22 nd January 2019 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 22 nd January 2019 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 28 th January 2019 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 14 th February 2019 AND WAS 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 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 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. 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 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 that context, it should be noted that the respondent does not oppose the grant of leave and that in the respondent's notice, leave to cross appeal is sought.
This determination follows on from an earlier determination issued by the Court in respect of the same application for leave to appeal ( Defender Limited v. HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) DAC & ors [2019] IESCDET 125). In the course of that earlier determination, the Court raised a question as to the appropriateness of allowing leapfrog leave to this Court in circumstances where there was also an appeal before the Court of Appeal in the same matter but where the grounds which were said to justify leapfrog leave were much narrower than the full ambit of grounds sought to be pursued in the Court of Appeal. As the Court pointed out in the earlier determination, the provisions of the Court of Appeal Act 2014...
To continue reading
Request your trial