Gibbons v Addington
 IESCDET 129
THE SUPREME COURT
O'Malley Iseult J.
Result: The Court does not grant leave to appeal.
This is an application for leave to appeal in respect of orders made in the High Court and Circuit Court, granting possession of the family home of the applicant to his brother in law Mr. Gibbons as personal representative of the estate of his aunt Vera Hanley (deceased). Mr. Gibbons and his sister, who is married to the applicant, are the beneficiaries of the estate.
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.
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.
The order of the Circuit Court was made on the 18 th July 2017. The judgment of the High Court was delivered earlier today, the 1 st December (see , Eagar J., 1 st December 2017).
It appears from the judgment that Mr. Gibbons wishes to sell his late aunt's home. The applicant and his wife have been residing in the house as tenants of the late Ms. Hanley since 2009. The applicant's wife has agreed that the house must be sold in order to administer the estate and she yielded up possession of the premises on the 21 st December 2016. prior to that date the applicant had ‘irrevocably’ withdrawn a previous objection and had consented in writing to his wife doing ‘all things necessary as she sees fit pertaining to the premises’.
The applicant subsequently changed his mind and refused to leave the premises....
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL