The Minister for Finance and Ireland v Aer Lingus Ltd and Comhfhorbairt (Gaillimh) t_a Aer Arran
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 23 |
| Date | 19 February 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | S:AP:IE:2019:000224 |
AND
AND
[2020] IESCDET 23
O'Donnell J.
Charleton J.
O'Malley J.
S:AP:IE:2019:000224
2013 No. 3288 P (2013 No. 6 CMP)
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Second Named Defendant / Applicant to appeal to this Court from the High Court.
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 2 nd July, 2019 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 3 rd December, 2019 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 10 th December, 2019 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 19 th December, 2019 AND WAS 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 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 Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v. Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 IR 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 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.
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 one of two identical applications for leave to appeal filed on behalf of the second named defendant (“Aer Arann”), arising from two sets of proceedings issued by the plaintiffs (the other being record no. 2013/3285 P). Both were dealt with in a single judgment delivered by Barrett J. on the 2 nd July 2019 – see [2019] IEHC 545. It is not apparent to this Court why there were two separate claims. The results were that in 2013/3288P Aer Arann was ordered to pay to the Minister €1,093,640 plus ongoing interest, while in 2013/3285P it was ordered to pay €2,897,608 plus ongoing interest.
In each case, the basis of the Minister's claim was a decision of the Commission,...
To continue reading
Request your trial