Munster Wireless Ltd v A Judge of the District Court
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,McKechnie J.,Charleton J. |
| Judgment Date | 15 September 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 103 |
| Date | 15 September 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000029 High Court record no: 2016 No. 543 JR |
AND
[2020] IESCDET 103
O'Donnell J.
McKechnie J.
Charleton J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000029
Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2019:000328
High Court record no: 2016 No. 543 JR
SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to William Fitzgerald 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: 14 th November, 2019 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 28 th November, 2019 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 13 th February, 2019 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 5 th March, 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, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 th of December, 2017) 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. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose 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 any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.
William Fitzgerald, acting, it is said, on behalf of the applicant company, Munster Wireless Limited, seeks leave to appeal to this court from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Whelan J; Costello and Murray D. concurring) ( [2019] IECA 286) in which that court refused to extend time to appeal against the decision of the High Court (Faherty J.) ( [2018] IEHC 412), which refused Mr. Fitzgerald's contention that he should be permitted to represent the applicant, a limited company, in judicial review proceedings commenced against the respondent. The respondent has sought a short extension of time in which to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Framus Ltd and Others v CRH Plc and Others
...director therein subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and was unsuccessful in his application to that Court (see, [2020] IESCDET 103), the Supreme Court stating at para. 6 in its determination refusing leave that the Court of Appeal had applied “ settled 58 . For complet......