McDonagh v The Chief Appeals Officer and the Minister for Social Protection
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,Baker J. |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 120 |
| Date | 14 October 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000095 High Court record no: 2017 No. 760 JR |
[2020] IESCDET 120
Clarke C.J.
MacMenamin J.
Baker J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000095
Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2018:000321
High Court record no: 2017 No. 760 JR
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Applicant 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: 22nd January, 2020 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 22nd January, 2020 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 29th July, 2020 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 19TH AUGUST, 2020 AND WAS IN TIME. |
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 Thirty-third 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 Quinn Insurance Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. 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. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.
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.
In that context, it should be noted that the respondent does oppose the grant of leave.
As appears from the notices filed and the judgments of the High Court (Coffey J.) (see, McDonagh v. The Chief Appeals Officer & anor. [2018] IEHC 407) and the Court of Appeal (see, Wilton McDonagh v. The Chief Appeals Officer & anor. [2020] IECA 5), the issues in these proceedings concerns the proper interpretation of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005 (as amended) (“the 2005 Act”)...
To continue reading
Request your trial