UCC v Information Commissioner
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,O’Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESCDET 180 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000100 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 31 July 2019 |
[2019] IESCDET 180
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
Clarke C.J.
MacMenamin J.
O’Malley J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000100
High Court record no: 2018 No. 12 MCA
IN THE MATTER OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2014
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 24 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2014 AND ORDER 130 AND ORDER 84C OF THE RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS
RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Respondent to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 3 rd April, 2019 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 7 th May, 2019 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 8 th May, 2019 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 28 th May, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME. |
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals is set out in the Constitution. As is clear from the terms of Article 34.5.3° thereof and the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty-third Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal that it be established by the applicant that the decision sought to be appealed involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice that there be an appeal to this Court. In addition, because this is an application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court, it is also necessary that it be established that there are “exceptional circumstances” warranting a direct appeal to this Court.
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 33 rd 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.
It should be noted that any ruling in a determination is a decision particular to that application and is final and conclusive only as far as the parties are concerned. The issue calling for the Court's consideration is whether the facts and...
To continue reading
Request your trial