Dully v Athlone Town Stadium

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,O'Malley J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 15 January 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IESCDET 4
• Date: 15 January 2021
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000103 High Court record no: 201 No.

BETWEEN

DAVID DULLY

PLAINTIFF

AND

ATHLONE TOWN STADIUM LIMITED AND BY ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT MADE ON THE 17 ^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 DECLAN MOLLOY KIERAN TEMPLE

AND

PADDY MCCAUL

DEFENDANTS

AND

FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND

NOTICE PARTY

[2021] IESCDET 4

Clarke C.J.

O'Malley J.

Baker J.

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000103

Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:201:000

High Court record no: 201 No.

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 Applicants 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: 17 th July, 2020

DATE OF ORDERS: 17 th July, 2020

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 27 th July, 2020

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 4 th September, 2020 AND WAS NOT 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 IR 812. 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 Any ruling in a determination concerns whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria identified above, is particular to that application, and is final and conclusive only to that extent and as between the parties.

4 The respondents are opposed to the grant of leave to appeal.

The Application

5 This is the application of Michael Forde, S.C. and Neil McNelis, solicitor (“the applicants”) for leave to appeal to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution from the orders of the Court of Appeal of 17 July 2020 following a ruling delivered ex tempore on 17 July 2020 (Costello J. sitting alone at a directions hearing) in which she refused their application for leave to issue a motion to be joined as notice parties in the appeal from the decision of the High Court.

6 The applicants seek to extend time as they had become aware of the date of perfection of the order only after the time to appeal had expired.

7 The applicants were engaged as counsel and solicitor respectively for the first-named defendant in the High Court but were replaced for the purpose of the appeal to the Court of Appeal. At the directions hearing, they sought a date to bring a notice of motion to be joined as notice parties to the appeal for the stated...