Tobin v Minister for Defence

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,Charleton J.
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IESCDET 202
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 17 December 2018

[2018] IESCDET 202

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

MacMenamin J.

Charleton J.

BETWEEN

GAVIN TOBIN

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE

IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEFENDANTS

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

RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Plaintiff / Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF ORDER: 9th July, 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 27th September, 2018

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 10th October, 2018 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 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 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 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” 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 opposes the grant of leave.

Decision

4 As can be seen from the notices referred to earlier, the issue with which this potential appeal is concerned relates to discovery. Orders for the disclosure of documents in the context of civil litigation are commonplace, and issues arising in that context could not meet the threshold of ‘matter of general public importance’ or ‘interests of justice’ which would justify granting leave to appeal to this Court. The application of well-established principles to...