Supporting Documents:

THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION

1. This is an application for leave to appeal in respect of orders made in the High Court and Circuit Court, granting possession of the family home of the applicant to his brother in law Mr. Gibbons as personal representative of the estate of his aunt Vera Hanley (deceased). Mr. Gibbons and his sister, who is married to the applicant, are the beneficiaries of the estate.

2. As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interest of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.
3. 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, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

4. The order of the Circuit Court was made on the 18^th July 2017. The judgment of the High Court was delivered earlier today, the 1^st December (see Gibbons v. Addington , Eagar J., 1^st December 2017).
5. It appears from the judgment that Mr. Gibbons wishes to sell his late aunt’s home. The applicant and his wife have been residing in the house as tenants of the late Ms. Hanley since 2009. The applicant’s wife has agreed that the house must be sold in order to administer the estate and she yielded up possession of the premises on the 21^st December 2016. prior to that date the applicant had “irrevocably” withdrawn a previous objection and had consented in writing to his wife doing “all things necessary as she sees fit pertaining to the premises”.
6. The applicant subsequently changed his mind and refused to leave the premises.
7. The issues before the High Court were: i) whether the Circuit Court had had jurisdiction to deal with the matter; ii) the claim made by the applicant that he had agreed with the deceased that he would reside in the house and be responsible for its maintenance; and iii) that it was his family home. It appears that the applicant also made a number of allegations against persons involved in the case.
8. The High Court held that the Circuit had had jurisdiction, having regard to the rateable valuation; that any claim the applicant had against the deceased should have been made within two years of her death; and that the Family Home Act did not apply where a tenancy had been duly determined. He therefore dismissed the appeal.
9. Noting that the applicant had not left the premises after the order of the Circuit Court, and had paid no rent, he refused a stay and ordered that the applicant vacate the premises by the 3^rd December 2017.

10. The applicant has not filled in a prescribed form. The court accepted the document that he wished to file, on the basis that if the constitutional criteria appeared to have been met, the Court might have had to expedite the application for leave to appeal and a possible application for a stay.

11. As is clear from a range of determinations made by this Court since the 33^rd Amendment of 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, or another court from which the Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction prescribed by law, 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 the 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 a further review on appeal to this Court.

12. In addition, leave to appeal directly from the High Court requires the applicant to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances warranting such an appeal.

13. It is against that background that it is necessary to consider the basis on which it is said that the constitutional threshold is met in this case.

14. The applicant has not used the prescribed form in making his application to the Court and it may for that reason that it is not possible to make out how his complaints relate to either the factual or legal issues in the case. In the circumstances the Court finds that he has not, on the papers thus far presented, identified either a point of law of general public importance or an issue that requires an appeal to be heard in the interests of justice. The application will not, therefore, be granted. However, if the applicant wishes to present a further application in proper form, specifying the points he wants to make and linking them to the facts of the case, such further application will be considered. For leave to be granted he will have to establish that he has a stateable case in law and that the constitutional criteria are met.