Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd v Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Donnelly J.,Faherty J.,Ní Raifeartaigh J.
• Judgment Date: 30 January 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] IECA 13
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: Record No: 2020 149

Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd

Appellant

and

Piotr Skoczylas

Applicant/Appellant

and

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents/Respondents

[2023] IECA 13

Donnelly J.

Faherty J.

Ní Raifeartaigh J.

Record No: 2020 149

COURT OF APPEAL

Clerical mistakes – Correction – Stay – Appellant seeking an order correcting mistakes in the judgment of the Court of Appeal – Whether consent should be sought before any motion is sought to be issued

Facts: The Court of Appeal, on 5 December 2022, issued judgment on a motion brought by the applicant/appellant, Mr Skoczylas, in which the Court refused his application to vary/set/aside/correct its judgment of 31 January 2022. The Court also refused his application “to stay these proceedings and to stay any order striking out this case” pending the determination of other separate proceedings he was bringing in the jurisdiction. On the 6 December 2022, Mr Skoczylas sought to issue a further motion. In this intended motion, Mr Skoczylas sought two reliefs. The first was an order, pursuant to Order 28 RSC, or alternatively pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, correcting mistakes in the judgment of the 5 December 2022. The second relief sought “an order to stay these proceedings and to stay any order striking out this case, pending the conclusion of the application for revision to the Court of Justice of the European Union, pursuant to Art. 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, made on 6 December 2022 in the case rec. no. C-41/15 Dowling e.a.”.

Held by the Court that where a party wishes to correct clerical mistakes in a judgment of the Court, calling in aid O. 28 r. 11 or inherent jurisdiction, it is neither appropriate nor necessary that a motion be issued without first writing to the other party seeking consent to such a correction. The Court held that, in accordance with the procedures indicated by O. 28 r. 11, which Mr Skoczylas had invoked, such clerical mistakes can be corrected where the parties consent, and with the approval of the court, by the registrar to the court either: (i) on the application to the registrar in writing of any party, to which a letter of consent to the correction from each other party shall be attached; or (ii) on receipt by the registrar of a letter of consent from each party. The Court held that where there is no consent, the court can correct the matter by motion on notice to the other party or on the listing of the proceedings before the court by the registrar on notice to each party. The Court held that consent should be sought before any motion is sought to be issued. The Court noted that Mr Skoczylas’s application for revision of the earlier Dowling judgment to the CJEU was made on 6 December 2022, a day after the Court of Appeal delivered judgment on the Greendale application. The Court held that the objective of such an application was a clear attempt to find another route to overturn the judgment refusing him his stay delivered on 5 December 2022 and ultimately to overturn the final judgment of the Court delivered on 31 January 2022. The Court held that this type of application seeking to overturn the finality of decisions was not permitted by the Greendale jurisprudence.

The Court held that, insofar as Mr Skoczylas wished to have a clerical error rectified in the judgment, he should comply with the procedure envisaged in O. 28 r. 11 and seek the consent of the respondents, Ireland and the Attorney General; if same was forthcoming, there would be no need to issue a motion in that regard and the Court would correct the error. Insofar as Mr Skoczylas made an application for a stay of the conclusion of the proceedings pending a ruling of the CJEU on his application for revision of its Dowling judgment, the Court refused leave to issue a motion in that regard.

Relief refused.

RULING of the Court delivered on the 30th day of January, 2023

1 . On 5 December 2022, this Court issued judgment on a motion brought by the above Applicant/Appellant, Mr. Skoczylas, in which the Court refused his application to vary/set/aside/correct its judgment of 31 January 2022. The Court also refused his application “to stay these proceedings and to stay any order striking out this case” pending...