John Gaynor
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,Woulfe J. |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IESCDET 19 |
| Date | 17 February 2021 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000138 High Court record no: Bankruptcy No. 3411 |
DETERMINATION IN THE MATTER OF
[2021] IESCDET 19
O'Donnell J.
Charleton J.
Woulfe J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000138
Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2019:000257
High Court record no: Bankruptcy No. 3411
An Chúirt Uachtarach
The Supreme Court
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 7 th December 2015 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 7 th December 2015 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 7 th December 2015 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL MADE ON: 17 th December 2020 AND WAS NOT IN TIME |
REASONS GIVEN:
This is, in effect, an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court, Costello J, that adjudicated Mr Gaynor as bankrupt, 7 th December 2015.
Mr Gaynor was adjudicated as bankrupt on 7 th December 2015 as a result of a petition presented by his former solicitors. Mr Gaynor then brought an application before O'Connor J to show cause against the adjudication. This was dismissed on 20 th April 2016. Mr Gaynor appealed the adjudication to the Court of Appeal; which appeal was out of time. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 10 th October 2016. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was made thereafter but was rejected on 6 th December 2017; [2017] IESCDET 124. Mr Gaynor also brought judicial review proceedings against the Court Service, but his application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed by order of the High Court on 30th November 2015. The Official Assignee in bankruptcy brought an application to extend the bankruptcy period of Mr Gaynor, which was granted on 23 rd January 2017 and this extended the duration of bankruptcy for five years. A second appeal to the Court of Appeal was made by Mr Gaynor, again appealing the 2015 ruling of Costello J. This was vacated on 9 th November 2020 by the Court of Appeal as no submissions had been filed by Mr Gaynor.
The adjudication of the applicant as bankrupt was in respect of the sum of €37,193.60 being the amount found on taxation to be due on foot of the order of the High Court of the 11 th Match 2013, by which it has been ordered that the applicant was to give up clear and vacant possession of the lands over which a well charging order had been made on 12 th July 2004 in turn made on foot of the judgment mortgage registered by the creditor. Neither the order for costs in respect of that original event nor the certificate of taxation were the subject of an appeal.
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 33 rd 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 BS v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. Accordingly it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
The application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice thereto, are both 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 further detail.
The court is not one for the correction of error. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.
Mr Gaynor requests an extension of time to his application as his application submitted on the 26 th November 2020 was not in compliance with the Rules of the Superior Court which resulted in a delay to rectify those issues. The respondents in their response object to the extension of time on the basis that Mr Gaynor has confirmed he is appealing the adjudication Order of 7 th December 2015 and he has not explained why this application is “(a) in excess of five years from the date of the making of the Adjudication Order; or (b) directly to the Supreme Court where the Court of Appeal is the Court of First Instance”.
It is the view of the Court that it would be inappropriate to extend time for making the application for leave to appeal. Whilst an application for leave was filed on 26 th November 2020 this appeal is in regards to an Order of 7 th December 2015. No sufficient evidence whereby such an extension might be granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larkin v Gaynor
...a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 14 . Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on 17 February 2021 ( [2021] IESCDET 19) on the basis that Mr. Gaynor was out of time for the leave application and on the basis that he had made no submissions establishing any ......