Star Elm Frames Ltd ((in Liquidation)) and the Companies Act 2014 between Fitzpatrick and Kirby

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Irvine J.
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 266
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2019:0000174 A:AP:IE:2017:000457 2016 No. 242 COS
• Date: 14 November 2019
• Court: Supreme Court

[2019] IESCDET 266

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

Dunne J.

Irvine J.

S:AP:IE:2019:0000174

A:AP:IE:2017:000457

2016 No. 242 COS

BETWEEN IN THE MATTER OF STAR ELM FRAMES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2014

BETWEEN

ANTHONY J FITZPATRICK

RESPONDENT

AND

MYLES KIRBY

APPLICANT

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

RESULT: The Court does not grant 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: 30th July, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 30th July, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 2nd August, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 23

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 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.

2 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.

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

Decision

4 As appears from the notices filed, it is said on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Fitzpatrick, that issues of general public importance arise in the context of the manner in which an application for attachment and committal brought against him, in respect of his alleged failure to comply with a previous order of the High Court to...