Supporting Documents:
 91-18 AFL.pdf 91-18 Respondents Notice.pdf
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
BETWEEN
IAN BAILEY PLAINTIFF AND
THE COMMISSSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Defendants / Applicants to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: Court of Appeal |
DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 26th July, 2017 |
DATE OF ORDER: 18th April, 2018 |
DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 9th May, 2018 |
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 5th June, 2018 AND WAS IN TIME. THE CROSS APPLICATION WAS MADE ON THE 21st June, 2018 AND WAS OUT OF TIME |
Decision
The applicants/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the State) seek to cross-appeal against that part of the order of the Court of Appeal of the 26th July, 2017 dismissing the State's cross-appeal before the Court of Appeal in relation to the finding of the learned trial judge to the effect that part of the plaintiff/respondent's claim was not statute-barred.
The plaintiff/respondent brought an application for leave to appeal to this Court. That application for leave to appeal has been refused by a determination of this Court. In their application for leave, it was stated on behalf of the State that they had been satisfied not to appeal in circumstances where, notwithstanding the decision in respect of which the cross-appeal is brought, the case was ultimately decided (by a jury) in favour of the State. Nevertheless, in circumstances where the plaintiff/respondent had sought to bring an appeal in respect of a range of matters, the State was of the view that a cross-appeal was now warranted albeit that the outcome of the case would not be altered in the event that the cross-appeal was successful (and if the plaintiff/respondent was not successful in his appeal).
In circumstances where this Court has determined that the plaintiff/respondent's application for leave should be refused and where it is clear that the State has only sought leave to appeal in circumstances where an application for leave to appeal had been brought by the plaintiff/respondent, and more particularly where it is absolutely clear that even if their cross-appeal was successful, the outcome of the case will not be altered, it would be a futile exercise at this point to permit an appeal to this Court. In any event, the point raised relating to the interpretation of the statute of limitations is one which involves the application of well known principles and case law to the particular facts in relation to the question as to whether or not an aspect of the claim made by the plaintiff/respondent was statute-barred. In those circumstances, no point of general public importance has been raised. In the circumstances, this Court will refuse the application for leave.
AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED ACCORDINGLY
|