Leopardstown Club Ltd v Templeville Developments Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Denham C.J.,MacMenamin J.,Dunne J. |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] IESCDET 19 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 09 February 2016 |
[2016] IESCDET 19
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
Denham C.J.
MacMenamin J.
Dunne J.
AND
This Determination concerns an application brought by the plaintiff/applicant (hereinafter ‘Leopardstown’). Leopardstown seek leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 26th July, 2015. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court trial judge, (Charleton J.), misdirected himself in law, and failed to make sufficient explicit or implicit findings of fact, so as to allow him to conclude that Leopardstown had not made any misrepresentation, or any misrepresentation of a material fact, which induced the respondents (Templeville and Philip Smith) to enter into an agreement known as a Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA). The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had misdirected himself in law and on the facts, in holding that the respondents had actual knowledge of a transverse cable crossing on the intended site of seven tennis courts, to be constructed by the respondents at Leopardstown Racecourse.
In its two judgments herein, delivered by Finlay Geoghegan J. and Hogan J., the Court of Appeal held that Leopardstown had failed to establish on the evidence, that Templeville and/or Philip Smith had actual knowledge of the transverse cable at the time of entering into the MSA. The court concluded that the respondents' constructive knowledge of the transverse cable, at the time of entering into the MSA, was not sufficient to defeat their counterclaim for misrepresentation against Leopardstown.
On foot of these findings, the Court of Appeal upheld the respondents' appeal against so much of the High Court judgment as dismissed their counterclaim which sought rescission of the MSA upon grounds of alleged misrepresentation, and directed that the single issue of Leopardstown's alleged misrepresentation, be remitted to the High Court for a retrial before a different judge.
The applicant, Leopardstown, appeals against the entirety of the Court of Appeal's judgments and order. It contends that its appeal raises issues of general public importance, such that it is in the interests of justice that there be an appeal to the Supreme Court.
This Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal, in the circumstances described in Article 34.5.3 of the Constitution, which states:
‘3. The Supreme Court shall, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, have appellate jurisdiction from a decision of the Court of Appeal, if the Supreme Court is satisfied that:
(i) The decision involves a matter of general public importance, or
(ii) In the interests of justice it is necessary that there be an appeal to the Supreme Court.’
The decision of the Supreme Court under Article 34.5.6 is, in all cases, ‘ final and conclusive’.
The constitutional framework established by the Thirty-third Amendment to the Constitution thus requires in order for a party to be entitled to appeal to this Court from a decision of the Court of Appeal it has to be demonstrated that either a ‘ matter of general public importance’ arises, or that ‘ in the interests of justice it is necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.’
The statutory framework for the exercise of the right to appeal to this Court is to be found in the Court of Appeal Act 2014, and in particular s.44 of that Act, which inserts a new s.7 into the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. The Rules of Court are set out in the amended Order 58.
The Constitution has retained the entitlement to have one appeal as a right from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, subject to express exclusions or regulation by statute. What is sought here is a second appeal. The jurisdiction to bring an appeal to this Court is confined, principally, to cases where, as a result of the determination of the Court of Appeal, the decision of that court is such that the issues raised on a proposed appeal would involve a matter of general public importance, or would be such that it is in the interests of justice that there should be a further appeal to this Court.
The applicants rely on two essential grounds:
Hay v. O'Grady
Leopardstown contend that the Court of Appeal fundamentally misconstrued its role in the appeal herein, as outlined, inter alia, in the judgment of this Court in Hay v. O'Grady [1992] 1 I.R. 210. The applicant says that it is necessary that a fundamental misconstruction and misapplication of that authority be corrected by this Court, as the principle addressed therein is so fundamental to the operation of the Court of Appeal, as to make any breach thereof a point of law of real general public importance, such as to necessitate an appeal to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leopardstown Club Ltd v Templeville Developments Ltd
...from the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 26th July, 2015. The Court granted leave to appeal on the 9th February, 2016: [2016] IESCDET 19. Two points were identified in the determination:- (a) The principle and application of the rule in Hay v. O'Grady [1992] I.R. 210 and th......