Permanent TSB v Beades

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: McKechnie J.,O'Malley J.,Finlay Geoghegan J.
• Judgment Date: 22 November 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IESCDET 194
• Date: 22 November 2018

[2018] IESCDET 194

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

McKechnie J.

O'Malley J.

Finlay Geoghegan J.

BETWEEN

PERMANENT TSB

AND

BY ORDER CHELDON PROPERTY FINANCE LIMITED

PLAINTIFFS

AND

JERRY BEADES

DEFENDANT

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

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Defendant / Applicant to appeal to this Court from an order of the Court of Appeal.

REASONS GIVEN:

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF ORDER: 13 th November, 2017

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 14 th November, 2017

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON: 12th December, 2018 AND WAS IN TIME.

1 This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal made on 13 November, 2017 dismissing an appeal from an order of the High Court (McGovern J.) made on 6 March, 2014. The order of the High Court granted the first named plaintiff possession of three properties in Fairview, Dublin.

Jurisdiction

2 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals is set out in the Constitution. As is clear from the terms of Article 34.5.3° thereof and the many Determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty-third Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal, that it be established by the applicant that the decision sought to be appealed involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice that there be an appeal to this Court.

3 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] IESC DET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Cooper (A Firm) v. Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this Determination.

4 It should be noted that any ruling in a Determination is a decision particular to that application and is final and conclusive only as far as the parties are concerned. The issue calling for the Court's consideration is whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria as above identified. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value relative to the substantive issues, if and when such issues should further arise...