Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v The Legal Aid Board

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,McKechnie J.,Charleton J.
• Judgment Date: 19 February 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IESCDET 20
• Date: 19 February 2021
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Record No.: S:AP:IE:2021:000003 High Court Record No.: 2019/169 J.R.

BETWEEN

FRIENDS OF THE IRISH ENVIRONMENT CLG

APPLICANT

AND

THE LEGAL AID BOARD

RESPONDENT

AND

IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

NOTICE PARTIES

[2021] IESCDET 20

O'Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

Charleton J.

Supreme Court Record No.: S:AP:IE:2021:000003

Court of Appeal Record No.: N./A.

High Court Record No.: 2019/169 J.R.

SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

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

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

REASONS GIVEN:

COURT: HIGH COURT.

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 15 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2020.

DATE OF ORDER: 16 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2020.

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 17 TH OF DECEMBER, 2020.

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON THE 6 TH OF JANUARY, 2021, 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, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 December 2017) 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 the so-called leapfrog appeal directly from the High Court to this court can be permitted were addressed by the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20 November 2017). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose 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 in any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.

Discussion

3 This is an application pursuant to Article 34.5.4° of the Constitution for leave to appeal to this Court directly from the decision of the High Court (Hyland J. – [2020] IEHC 454) dismissing the applicant's claim that the term “person” in the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) should be interpreted to include a legal person such as the applicant. The applicant argued that the 1995 Act should be interpreted to include legal persons on a twofold basis: first, in reliance on the terms of the Interpretation Act 2005; and, second, by reference to an interpretative obligation sought to be derived from the provisions of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 9(4)...