Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Dunne

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Dunne J.,Irvine J.
• Judgment Date: 11 November 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 258
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2019:000109 2017 No. 181 CA 2016/00391
• Date: 11 November 2019
• Court: Supreme Court

[2019] IESCDET 258

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

Dunne J.

Irvine J.

S:AP:IE:2019:000109

2017 No. 181 CA

2016/00391

BETWEEN

PEPPER FINANCE CORPORATION (IRELAND) DAC

PLAINTIFF

AND

MARIA DUNNEDEFENDANT

DEFENDANT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

RESULT:The Court does not grant leave to the Defendant to appeal to this Court from the Circuit Court.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Circuit Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 18th DECEMBER 2018

DATE OF ORDER: 18th DECEMBER 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 20th DECEMBER 2018

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 4 JUNE 2019 AND WAS NOT IN TIME.

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. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice is 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.

3 In that context it should be noted that the respondent does oppose the grant of leave.

Decision

4 This case has a somewhat complicated procedural history and originated with an order made on 16 March 2017 by the County Registrar in the South Eastern Circuit in County Tipperary, Clonmel. The terms of the order permitted the respondent herein to recover from the applicant herein possession of the property situated at 14 Dominick Street, Cashel, County Tipperary and that the possession order would be stayed for a period of five...