A v The Minister for Justice and Equality
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | Supreme Court |
Judge | Clarke C.J.,Irvine J.,Baker J. |
Judgment Date | 21 January 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 3 |
Date | 21 January 2020 |
Docket Number | S:AP:IE:2019:000200 |
[2020] IESCDET 3
Clarke C.J.
Irvine J.
Baker J.
S:AP:IE:2019:000200
2018 No. 891 JR
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Minister and the other State parties to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.
REASONS GIVEN:
COURT: High Court |
DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 17th July, 2019 and 29 July 2019 |
DATE OF ORDER: 29th July, 2019 |
DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 25th October, 2019 |
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 6th November, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME. |
The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal have 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.
In addition, because this is an application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court, it is necessary that it be established that there are “exceptional circumstances” warranting a direct appeal to this Court. The Supreme Court held in Mackeral v. O'Donoghue [2015] IESCDET 27 that it would generally allow a leapfrog appeal only where the exceptional factor or factors identified make it probable both that:
(a) the case will come to the Supreme Court in any event, and;
(b) the clarification of the legal issues raised would be unlikely to significantly benefit from an intermediate appeal to the Court of Appeal.
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.
Whilst the respondent does not oppose the grant of leave, this Court must itself be satisfied that the constitutional threshold has been met.
Any ruling in a determination concerns whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria identified above, is particular to...
To continue reading
Request your trial