Murphy -v- Gilligan & ors [2014] IESC 43 (09 July 2014)

Murphy -v- Gilligan & ors [2014] IESC 43 (09 July 2014)

It would be wholly inappropriate to permit a forensic accountant’s report to be admitted in evidence on appeal, as the evidence could and should have been produced at the High Court hearing. The legal test for admitting new evidence on appeal is not met, and there is no justification for providing funding for its production.

Citation
[2014] IESC 43
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Michael F. Murphy; Defendant/appellant: John Gilligan; Defendant/appellant: Geraldine Gilligan; Defendant/appellant: Darren Gilligan; Defendant/appellant: Tracy Gilligan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Motions Pending Appeal
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Admission of New Evidence on Appeal, Legal Aid, Disclosure of Documents, Finality of Judgments
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Proceeds of Crime Admission of New Evidence on Appeal Legal Aid Disclosure of Documents Finality of Judgments

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael F. Murphy

Plaintiff/respondent

John Gilligan

Defendant/appellant

Geraldine Gilligan

Defendant/appellant

Darren Gilligan

Defendant/appellant

Tracy Gilligan

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Motions Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether funding should be provided for a forensic accountant's report to be admitted as new evidence on appeal
  2. 2 Whether new evidence can be admitted on appeal under the relevant legal test
  3. 3 Whether the issue of proceeds of crime versus gambling winnings can be re-litigated on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

It would be wholly inappropriate to permit a forensic accountant’s report to be admitted in evidence on appeal, as the evidence could and should have been produced at the High Court hearing. The legal test for admitting new evidence on appeal is not met, and there is no justification for providing funding for its production.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Application for funding for a forensic accountant’s report refused
  • Direction that Greendale motions be heard in advance of substantive appeals