M v M

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Dunne J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 15 April 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 82
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 15 April 2019

[2019] IESCDET 82

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

Dunne J.

O'Malley J.

BETWEEN

H.M.

APPLICANT

AND

S.M.

RESPONDENT

AND

THE PRIVATE TRUST CORPORATION LIMITED

NOTICE PARTY

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

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Respondent 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: 5 th December, 2018

DATE OF ORDER: 5 th December, 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 17 th December, 2018

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 4 th January, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

REASONS GIVEN:

General Considerations

1 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 B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 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 the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions (2017) IESCDET 115. Accordingly it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

2 The application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice thereto, 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 in detail.

Decision

3 As appears from the papers filed in this case the essential issue which the applicant (‘Mr. M’) seeks to raise concerns the costs of these proceedings which he has been directed to pay by court order and in respect of which the costs have been quantified. The unusual circumstances in which certain aspects of the costs order made in this case arose are fully set out in the judgment of Baker J. in the Court of Appeal ( H.M v S.M [2018] IECA 396). It is therefore unnecessary to repeat...