Supporting Documents:

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Plaintiff/Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

1. Jurisdiction

This determination relates to an application by the plaintiff/applicant (the Plaintiff) for leave to appeal, under Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution, from an ex tempore judgment of the Court of Appeal (Ryan P., Irvine and Mahon JJ.) delivered on the 25th January, 2016 ([2016] IECA 98). The order appealed against was also made on the 25th January, 2016 and perfected on the 28th January, 2016. As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and 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, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed against either involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interests of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court

The Court considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is 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 a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, only the issue or issues upon which leave has been granted will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

2. The proceedings

These proceedings commenced in the Circuit Court (Western Circuit, County of Mayo) and an order was made in the Circuit Court on the 13th February, 2013 which was then appealed by Mary Anne Stephens to the High Court on Circuit. The matter came for hearing before the High Court on Circuit on the 15th July, 2013. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the hearing before the High Court on Circuit and sought to appeal the decision of the High Court on Circuit to the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff is appealing the order of the Court of Appeal made on foot of an ex tempore judgment of the Court of Appeal (the President) in which it is recited that:

“[T]he Court indicating that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the within appeal [it is ordered] that the appeal be struck out with no further order.”

“1. The court cannot hear an appeal from a Circuit appeal. There is no appeal. This appeal should not have been permitted because there is no appeal.

2. Dr. Stephens and Mrs. Stephens, if you bring a case in the Circuit Court and you appeal it to the High Court, that is the end of the line; there is no further line. It has been decided time and again by the Supreme Court – we do not have jurisdiction. You appealed the case to the High Court; there was a decision of the High Court – the case should not have been admitted into this Court.”

3. The contentions of the parties

The notice of application for leave to appeal together with the response is published along with this determination. It is not, in those circumstances, necessary to set out in full detail the contents of those documents. For the purposes of this determination it is sufficient to summarise the basis upon which the Plaintiff suggests that the constitutional threshold for leave to appeal has been met.

The Plaintiff contends that the Court of Appeal by its order barred her from a consideration of the challenge to the existence of a High Court on Circuit re-hearing pursuant to s. 38(2) of the Court of Justice Act 1936. It is further contended that she was barred from a challenge to the decision of the High Court on Circuit on the basis that it was not a final and conclusive decision as it is contended that a fundamental breach of fair procedures and justice occurred at the High Court. It is contended in those circumstances that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and a duty to protect constitutional rights which may arise even if there has been what appears to be a final order.

The Defendant/Respondent (“the Defendant”) in its responding notice has contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to enter the appeal herein because the Court of Appeal has already determined that no appeal lies from a decision of a High Court dealing with a Circuit Court appeal, that the decision of the High Court on hearing a Circuit Court appeal is final and unappealable and accordingly that there is no appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal to this Court. It is contended that the reasons advanced by the Plaintiff in her application for leave and notice are not valid reasons why this Court should grant leave to appeal. It is further pointed out that the Court of Appeal indicated in its judgment and order that it had read the Plaintiff’s notice of appeal, the order of the High Court, the application for directions issued by the Plaintiff on the 26th August, 2015, the grounds of opposition to the application filed on behalf of the defendant on the 25th September, 2015, the Plaintiff’s response to the said grounds of opposition and submissions lodged on behalf of the defendant and the affidavit of the Plaintiff filed on the 21st January, 2016 and the documents contained in the book of appeal. Having considered the arguments set out by the Plaintiff in the documents and those made by the Defendant, the Court of Appeal concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.

4. Discussion

As is clear from the range of determinations made by this Court since the Thirty Third Amendment to the Constitution came into force, the constitutional function of this Court is no longer that of an appeal court designed to correct alleged errors by the trial court. Where it is said that the High Court has simply been in error in some material respect, the constitutional regime now in place confers jurisdiction to correct any such error as may be established on the Court of Appeal. Rather the text of the Constitution now in place makes it clear that an appeal to this Court, whether directly from the High Court under Article 34.5.4° or from the Court of Appeal under Article 34.5.3°, requires that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed against involves a matter of general public importance or that it otherwise is in the interests of justice necessary to allow an appeal to this Court. It will rarely be necessary in the interests of justice to permit an appeal to this Court simply because it is said that the lower court was in error. An appeal to the Court of Appeal provides the appropriate remedy for any error made by the High Court. Likewise, a party which has had the opportunity to have a decision of the High Court reviewed by the Court of Appeal will have had the benefit of having been able to put its case both at trial and on appeal. Without more, the interests of justice will not require any further review on appeal to this Court.

Against that background it is necessary to address the basis on which it is said that the constitutional threshold is met in this case. The Plaintiff in this case brought proceedings in the Circuit Court. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Circuit Court, she appealed that decision to the High Court on Circuit. Following the making of an order by the High Court on Circuit, and being dissatisfied with the proceedings before the High Court on Circuit, the Plaintiff sought to appeal the matter yet again to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in its short judgment referred to a long line of authority in respect of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a Circuit Court hearing. Section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 provides as follows:

“The decision of the High Court or of the High Court on Circuit on an appeal under this Part of this Act shall be final and conclusive and not appealable.”

5. Conclusion

The Court therefore refuses leave to appeal under Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution.

AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED ACCORDINGLY