Supporting Documents:
107-17 AFL.pdf

BETWEEN

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

Result: The Court does not grant leave to appeal.

Reasons Given:

1 These proceedings concern an application by the applicant Ms Carr, who represents herself, to seek leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Birmingham, Mahon and Hedigan JJ), of the 19th of May 2017, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the order of the High Court (Noonan J) of the 20th of February 2017, which refused the applicant leave to seek judicial review of an order made by the respondent in the District Court of the 6th of October 2016, refusing to strike out the proceedings.

2 As is apparent even from the foregoing description, the order which it is sought to quash related to District Court proceedings which have not yet completed. The applicant has the right to contest those proceedings on their merits, and to appeal to the Circuit Court in the event that she is unhappy with the outcome of those proceedings.

3 Both the High Court and Court of Appeal considered that in essence the applicant was seeking to review the substance of the District Court decision. In refusing the application for leave to seek judicial review, the High Court and Court of Appeal applied well established law. Accordingly the Court considers that the application raises no issue of general public importance, and that it is not otherwise in the interests of justice than an appeal should be brought to the Supreme Court. Leave to appeal to this Court will therefore be refused.

And It is hereby so ordered accordingly.