McEnery -v- Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2016] IESC 26 (12 May 2016)

McEnery -v- Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2016] IESC 26 (12 May 2016)

A respondent does not require separate leave to appeal to raise additional or alternative grounds for affirming a lower court’s decision, provided those grounds were before the lower courts and are specified in the respondent’s notice. However, failure to specify such grounds in the respondent’s notice means they are not properly before the Supreme Court and require the Court’s leave to be raised. In this transitional period, leave is granted to allow the points to be relied on, but future omissions may not be excused.

Citation
[2016] IESC 26
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Martha McEnery; Respondent/appellant: Commissioner of An Garda Síochána
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Procedural Ruling on Additional Grounds
Outcome
Leave granted to allow additional grounds to be relied on; appeal can proceed.
Legal Topics
Appellate Procedure, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Summary Dismissal, Procedural Fairness
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Appellate Procedure Leave to Appeal Judicial Review Summary Dismissal Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martha McEnery

Applicant/respondent

Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Procedural Ruling on Additional Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a respondent may raise additional grounds to affirm a lower court's decision in the Supreme Court without separate leave to appeal
  2. 2 Consequences of failing to specify such grounds in the respondent’s notice under the new appellate regime

Ratio Decidendi

A respondent does not require separate leave to appeal to raise additional or alternative grounds for affirming a lower court’s decision, provided those grounds were before the lower courts and are specified in the respondent’s notice. However, failure to specify such grounds in the respondent’s notice means they are not properly before the Supreme Court and require the Court’s leave to be raised. In this transitional period, leave is granted to allow the points to be relied on, but future omissions may not be excused.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to allow additional grounds to be relied on; appeal can proceed.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to Sgt. McEnery to rely on additional grounds not specified in the respondent’s notice.
  • Parties are cautioned that similar procedural latitude may not be afforded in the future.