Murphy & anor -v- Gilligan [2017] IESC 3 (01 February 2017)

Murphy & anor -v- Gilligan [2017] IESC 3 (01 February 2017)

The Supreme Court held that the s.3(1) order was valid and operative, providing jurisdiction for the High Court to make subsequent orders. The constitutional and Convention challenges had already been determined and dismissed in previous proceedings. No grounds existed to set aside the Supreme Court's final judgment under the Greendale principles. The appeals were dismissed.

Citation
[2017] IESC 3
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Michael F. Murphy; Plaintiff/respondent: Felix J. McKenna; Defendant/appellant: John Gilligan; Defendant/appellant: Geraldine Gilligan; Defendant/appellant: Darren Gilligan; Defendant/appellant: Treacy Gilligan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Asset Forfeiture, Burden of Proof, Constitutionality of Legislation, European Convention on Human Rights, Due Process, Property Rights
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Human Rights Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Burden of Proof Constitutionality of Legislation +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael F. Murphy

Plaintiff/respondent

Felix J. McKenna

Plaintiff/respondent

John Gilligan

Defendant/appellant

Geraldine Gilligan

Defendant/appellant

Darren Gilligan

Defendant/appellant

Treacy Gilligan

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make orders under s.3(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 in the absence of a valid s.3(1) order
  2. 2 Whether the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 is unconstitutional or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court's previous final judgment should be set aside under the Greendale principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the s.3(1) order was valid and operative, providing jurisdiction for the High Court to make subsequent orders. The constitutional and Convention challenges had already been determined and dismissed in previous proceedings. No grounds existed to set aside the Supreme Court's final judgment under the Greendale principles. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • No order setting aside previous Supreme Court judgment