Geoghegan v Dillon

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 11 October 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 103
• Date: 11 October 2017

[2017] IESCDET 103

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

Charleton J.

O'Malley J.

BETWEEN

PATRICK GEOGHEGAN

AND

NUALA GEOGHEGAN

PLAINTIFFS

AND

ANDREW DILLON FORMERLY PRACTISING UNDER THE STYLE AND TITLE OF DILLON MULLINS

AND

PATRICK MULLINS FORMERLY PRACTISING UNDER THE STYLE AND TITLE OF DILLON MULLINS

DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES.

Result: The Court does not grant leave to appeal.

Reasons Given:

Jurisdiction

1 This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the applicants' appeal against the order of the President of the High Court made on the 18th June 2015. Pursuant to the President's order, the respondent (the applicants' former solicitor) was granted judgment in the sum of €42,138.40 (plus costs), while the applicants' claim for damages for professional negligence against the respondent was dismissed.

2 As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment 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 interest of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.

3 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 so far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

Background

4 The notices filed by the applicants and respondent are available on this website and are very briefly summarised here.

5 In 2004 the applicants engaged the respondent to act on their behalf in an action against eleven defendants who they believed to be responsible for physical injuries and financial loss suffered by them as a result of the operations of the alumina processing plant at Aughinish Island. A plenary summons was issued on the 4th August 2004.

6 It appears that while some defendants were served with the summons within the initial twelve months, others were not. Accordingly the respondents...