Supporting Documents:

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

BETWEEN

Result: The Court grants leave to the applicant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Reasons given:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of the Court of Appeal (see Allied Irish Banks plc v. Aqua Fresh Fish Limited [2017] IECA 77).

2. The notices filed by the applicant and respondent are available on this website and will not be summarised here. Despite the greatly excessive length of the applicant’s notice, it is clear that the sole issue in the application is whether or not Mr. Adrian Flynn should have been permitted to represent the interests of the applicant company in the substantive proceedings brought against it by the bank. In those proceedings the bank seeks an order for possession and, if necessary, the sale of certain property mortgaged to the bank by the company. The basis for that claim is an alleged default on payment of a loan.

3. Mr. Flynn is the managing director and, he says, the 100% owner of the company. He has averred that it does not have the funds to engage legal representation, and that he should have been permitted to represent it by way of exception to the rule established in Battle v. Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd [1968] I.R. 252. He also avers that the company has a defence to the bank’s proceedings. There has not been a full examination of the merits of that defence, but in the High Court judgment (see [2015] IEHC 184) the view was expressed that it did not appear to be a real, arguable defence or have a reasonable chance of success. However, the key finding in the Court of Appeal was that the case did not fall into the category of rare and exceptional cases that would warrant a departure from the rule set out in Battle, and that that Court was bound by that decision.

Decision

4. The Court also considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised and the facts underpinning them meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, the issue or issues upon which leave has been granted, will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

5. The judgment in Battle v. Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd has not been reconsidered in this Court in the decades that followed. The respondent is correct in stating that it was referred to recently in Coffey v. Environmental Protection Agency [2014] 2 I.R. 125. However, that judgment was primarily concerned with an application to permit one unqualified person to represent a number of lay litigants. One of the appellants was a company, and the person who wished to act as representative had taken the step of joining the company, but the Court considered this to be a device without merit. In referring to the Battle rule, Fennelly J. said that it represented the law at present, but noted that it had effects that were “far from ideal”. It is clear that the issue was not fully ventilated.

6. In the circumstances the Court considers that the appellant has raised a point of general public importance. Leave to appeal to this Court will be granted on the question whether the rule in Battle v. Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd should be applied in all cases where a director of a company seeks to represent it in court proceedings and if not, what criteria should be applied in granting such representation. It may be that other questions will be formulated in the case-management process.

Recommendation

7. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the existence of a scheme for the provision of legal representation, free of charge, for the purpose of arguing an appeal for which this Court has granted leave. Having regard to the complexities of the legal arguments that may arise in the appeal it is strongly recommended that the applicant should contact the Court Registrar with a view to availing of this scheme. If Mr. Flynn chooses not to take this option the Court wishes him to understand that the rules in relation to the presentation of appeals in this Court will be applied to him as they are to qualified practitioners.

And it is hereby so ordered accordingly.