Tolan v Connaught Gold Co-Operative Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,O'Malley J.,Finlay Geoghegan J.
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IESCDET 191
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 06 November 2018

[2018] IESCDET 191

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

O'Malley J.

Finlay Geoghegan J.

BETWEEN

FINBAR TOLAN

PLAINTIFF

AND

CONNAUGHT GOLD CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED

DEFENDANT

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

RESULT: The Court does not grant 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: 31st July, 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 1st August, 2018

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 27th August, 2018 AND WAS IN TIME.

REASONS GIVEN:

General Considerations

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. Accordingly it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

2 The application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice thereto, 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 detail.

Discussion

3 This application has its origins in a dispute between the parties as to the terms of credit extended to the applicant (a cattle dealer) by the respondent mart owner (which later changed its name to 'Aurivo'). After a four-day hearing on the merits, in which the applicant was represented by senior and junior counsel, his claim that he had a binding contract on particular terms was dismissed by the President of the High Court. An appeal on the merits was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the 5th May 2016 (see Tolan v Connaught Gold...