Triode Newhill LHP Ltd v Murray
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | MacMenamin J.,Clarke C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESCDET 122 |
| Docket Number | A:AP:IE:2018:000102 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 12 June 2019 |
[2019] IESCDET 122
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
Clarke C.J.
MacMenamin J.
O'Malley J.
A:AP:IE:2018:000102
AND
| COURT: Court of Appeal |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 15 th November, 2018 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 28 th November, 2018 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 3 rd December, 2018 |
| APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES |
| RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to appeal to this Court, pursuant to Article 34.5.3. |
This is an application for leave for appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Peart, Irvine and Whelan JJ.), dated the 15th November, 2018 ( [2018] IECA 356). The order of the Court of Appeal was made on the 28th November, 2018, and was perfected on the 3rd December, 2018.
The principles applied in deciding whether or not to grant leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution under the 33rd Amendment have been considered in many 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. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
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.
The substantive issue in these proceedings was summarised by the Court of Appeal:
‘This is an appeal against the order made by the High Court (Barrett J.) dated the 20th February 2018 in answer to a Consultative Case Stated to the High Court by District Judge Seamus Hughes arising from applications made to him for the ad interim transfer of two wine, beer and spirit off-licences attaching to two separate premises in County Westmeath which trade under the well-known Spar brand’ (para. 1).
This application for leave to appeal centres on the order of the Court of Appeal as it relates to costs, wherein it was ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal and the costs of the proceedings in the High Court, ‘but only 50% thereof’. In summary, the applicant seeks leave to appeal on the basis of the award of costs having been unfair, the case proceeding as it did by way of a consultative case stated.
As proceedings arose due to a consultative case stated forwarded to the High Court by Judge Hughes of the District Court, the applicant indicates that at no point during these proceedings did they seek to challenge the decisions of the District Court, the High Court or the Court of Appeal. The applicant contends that, in those circumstances, it was unfair to be asked to pay 50% of the costs in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and that it is therefore in the interests of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.
The applicant argues that the resolution of the present issue is of general public importance as it will have significant consequences for future licensing applications, for both off-licenses in the District Court and...
To continue reading
Request your trial