Galway Free Range Eggs Ltd v O'Brien
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Clarke C.J.,O'Malley J.,Irvine J. |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESCDET 153 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 26 June 2019 |
[2019] IESCDET 153
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
Clarke C.J.
O'Malley J.
Irvine J.
AND
| COURT: Court of Appeal |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 22nd January, 2019 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 31st January, 2019 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 31st January, 2019 |
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals is set out in the Constitution. As is clear from the terms of Article 34.5.3° thereof and the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty-third Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal, that it be established by the applicant that the decision sought to be appealed involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice that there be an appeal to this Court.
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 33rd 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. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
It should be noted that any ruling in a determination is a decision particular to that application and is final and conclusive only as far as the parties are concerned. The issue calling for the Court's consideration is whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria as above identified. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value relative to the substantive issues, if and when such issues should further arise in a different case. Where leave is granted on any...
To continue reading
Request your trial