Grant Thornton (A Firm) and by Order Grant Thornton Corporate Finance Ltd v Scanlan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,MacMenamin J.,Charleton J.
• Judgment Date: 28 September 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 109
• Date: 28 September 2020
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000004 and S:AP:IE:2020:000005 High Court record no: 2015 No. 9954 P

BETWEEN

GRANT THORNTON (A FIRM)

AND BY ORDER

GRANT THORNTON CORPORATE FINANCE LIMITED

PLAINTIFF

AND

GERALDINE SCANLAN

DEFENDANT

[2020] IESCDET 109

O'Donnell J.

MacMenamin J.

Charleton J.

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000004 and S:AP:IE:2020:000005

Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2017:000459 and A:AP:IE:2017:000464

High Court record no: 2015 No. 9954 P

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 Defendant 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: 31st October, 2019

DATE OF ORDERS: 31st October, 2019 (2)

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 6th December, 2019

THE APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WERE MADE ON 7th January, 2020 AND WERE NOT IN TIME, BUT THE COURT WILL EXTEND TIME.

Considerations

1 This determination relates to an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal.

2 The general principles applicable 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] IESC DET 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 this Court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESC DET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

3 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.

4 In that context, it should be noted the respondent (Grant Thornton) opposes the grant of leave.

Decision

5 In these proceedings, Grant Thornton sought permanent injunctions restraining Ms. Scanlon from disseminating, or making use of, certain confidential information which had been sent to her in error. The firm claimed, inter alia,...