Superwood Holdings Plc v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Clarke C. J.,MacMenamin J.,O'Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IESCDET 96 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 31 July 2017 |
[2017] IESCDET 96
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
Clarke C. J.
MacMenamin J.
O'Malley J.
AND
This determination relates to an application made by the plaintiffs in the underlying proceedings for leave to appeal under Article 34.5.3 of the Constitution, from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Irvine J., Edwards J., McDermott J.), delivered on the 1st March, 2017, [2017] IECA 76. The order appealed against was made on the 8th March, 2017. As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise in the interests of justice necessary that there should be an appeal to this Court.
The Court considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.
This application for leave arises from a judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered against the background of one of the longest running cases in Irish legal history between the same parties. Following a trial of 116 days, O'Hanlon J. in the High Court delivered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs/applicants' claim on the liability issue. The case was appealed to this Court. Following a 16 day hearing, the appeal was allowed. ( Superwood Holdings plc v Sun Alliance & London Insurance plc [1995] 3 I.R. 303.) The case was remitted to the High Court and heard in modules. The issue against one insurer was ultimately resolved. Following a trial of 281 days, the High Court (Smyth J.) delivered an oral judgment over three days, delivered in open court. The plaintiffs/applicants failed to beat the lodgement, and were granted the costs, up to the date of lodgement only. As a consequence, the plaintiffs/applicants faced a legal bill of some Ir. £5 million. The plaintiffs/applicants were unable to provide security for costs for the appeal, and the appeal to this Court was ultimately dismissed, Superwood Holdings Plc. v. Sun Alliance (No. 3) [2004] 2 I.R. 407. A subsequent application to the ECHR for delay resulted in Ireland being ordered to pay €3,800 plus interest to Superwood. ( Superwood Holdings plc and others v. Ireland, App. No. 7812/04 [2011] ECHR 1309 (8 September 2011)) The plaintiffs/applicants brought a further application to this Court, and heard on the 25th of October, 2013, seeking in part to rely on the judgment of the ECtHR. The Court held a number of the reliefs were incapable of being granted, and thus, the substantive case having been dismissed many years before, this Court had no jurisdiction. ( [2014] IESC 14). In purporting to rely on that judgment, in 2014 the plaintiffs/applicants launched a second set of proceedings claiming that the ultimate decision of the High Court in the first proceedings, by Smyth J., had been obtained by fraud. By a judgment and order of the High Court, McGovern J., on the 27th January, 2017, the plaintiffs/applicants' second proceedings were dismissed on the grounds that they disclosed no cause of action, were frivolous and vexatious, and an abuse of process. The plaintiffs/applicants appealed the order and judgment of McGovern J., by Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal dated the 15th May, 2015. The original 61 grounds of appeal were reduced by direction of the Court of Appeal to 10 grounds.
The background...
To continue reading
Request your trial