The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Gormley
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Clarke C.J.,Dunne J.,Baker J. |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 135 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000116 High Court record no: 2019 No. 21 CA |
[2020] IESCDET 135
Clarke C.J.
Dunne J.
Baker J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000116
Court of Appeal record no: none
High Court record no: 2019 No. 21 CA
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Defendant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 20th May, 2019 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 20 th May, 2019 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 21 st May, 2019 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 10 th June, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME. |
This determination relates to an application for leave to appeal.
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 33rd 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, 6 December 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ directly 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 (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20 November 2017). It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.
Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondents' 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.
The respondents require an extension of time for the filing of the respondent's notice. It appears that at the time that they received the application for leave, they also received two motions on notice filed by the applicant herein returnable before the High Court and the Circuit Court. Through inadvertence they miscalculated the time for filing the respondent's notice. The respondent's notice was filed on the 26th July, 2019 and in the circumstances it is appropriate to grant an extension of time for filing the notice.
It should be noted that the respondent/plaintiff opposes the grant of leave.
This matter relates to proceedings commenced in the Circuit Court in which the plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter called “the Bank”) sought and were granted an order for possession of a property in Edenderry, County Offaly. The order was granted following a hearing before the Circuit Court on the 16th day of January, 2019. The Bank was represented by solicitor and counsel at that hearing and the applicant herein represented himself. There was no appearance on behalf of the second named defendant. The hearing, as provided for in the rules of the Circuit Court, was on affidavit and a number of affidavits had been filed by the applicant in response to those of the Bank. The order for possession having been granted, the applicant appealed the decision of the Circuit Court to the High Court and the matter came on for hearing before the High Court on the 20th May, 2019 (Jordan J.). On that occasion, the applicant was represented by solicitor and counsel. The Court was informed by counsel on behalf of the applicant that the issues arising from the affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant were “very much by way of legal argument”. There was apparently reference to a number of detailed judgments of the European Court of Justice which had been exhibited. Counsel informed the Court that it was not necessary to deal with those matters and that the defence was limited to one specific matter. The defence raised before the High Court related to the entitlement of the Bank to pursue the proceedings against the applicant in circumstances where the Bank was not the original mortgagee and there had been a transfer of the interest in the mortgage from ICS Mortgage Bank to the Bank. The issue that therefore arose was whether or not the Bank was entitled to bring the proceedings given that the folio in respect of the particular property still identified ICS Mortgage Bank as the registered owner of the charge.
It appears from the transcript that the point raised at this stage was not one that had been raised before the Circuit Court. Other arguments were raised as to the status of the property and...
To continue reading
Request your trial