The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Morrissey
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 125 |
| Date | 02 November 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000012 |
[2020] IESCDET 125
O'Donnell J.
Charleton J.
O'Malley J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000012
High Court record no: 2018 No. 78 CA
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Defendant /Applicant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 31 st May, 2019 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 31 st May, 2019 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 12 th June, 2019 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 7 th February, 2020 AND WAS NOT IN TIME. |
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, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6th of December, 2017) 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 the so-called leapfrog appeal directly from the High Court to this court can be permitted were addressed by the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20th of November, 2017). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
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 in any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.
This is a leapfrog application for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court (MacGrath J.) to allow the appeal of the respondent against an order made by the Master. The Master had extended time for the applicant to appeal against a Circuit Court order granting possession of his home to the respondent. The judgment of MacGrath J. was delivered on the 31st of May, 2019 (see: [2019] IEHC 398), and the order was perfected on the 12th of June, 2019. This application for leave was lodged on the 7th of February, 2020. The applicant would, therefore, require a very significant extension of time if this application were to be successful.
The application was referred to a panel under the provisions relating to incomplete applications on the basis that the transcript of the Circuit Court hearing had not been approved. However, the Court does not consider that omission to be significant in the circumstances of the case and has assessed the application on its merits.
On the 24th of October, 2017, the respondent obtained an order for possession of the applicant's home. Although he had been making regular payments on foot of his mortgage, he was unable to pay the due amounts and there was a significant balance owing. The Circuit Court judge granted a six-month stay on the order. The applicant thereupon indicated his intention to appeal.
However, rather than lodging an appeal, the applicant decided to seek judicial review relief, and did so on the 22nd of...
To continue reading
Request your trial