The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Kevin Gormley (Approved) [2020] IECA 102 (12 March 2020)

The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Kevin Gormley (Approved) [2020] IECA 102 (12 March 2020)

The Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the order refusing access to the DAR is not a decision 'on' an appeal within the meaning of s.39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, but the appeal must be refused as the appellant failed to establish any proper basis for access, did not demonstrate error in the exercise of discretion, and merely replicated an earlier refused application without change in circumstances.

Citation
[2020] IECA 102
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland; Defendant/appellant: Kevin Gormley
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Appeals, Digital Audio Recording Access, Court Jurisdiction, Possession Proceedings
Civil Procedure Property Law Appeals Digital Audio Recording Access Court Jurisdiction Possession Proceedings

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland

Plaintiff/respondent

Kevin Gormley

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order refusing access to the Digital Audio Recording (DAR) of High Court proceedings is appealable under s.39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established grounds for access to the DAR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the order refusing access to the DAR is not a decision 'on' an appeal within the meaning of s.39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, but the appeal must be refused as the appellant failed to establish any proper basis for access, did not demonstrate error in the exercise of discretion, and merely replicated an earlier refused application without change in circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no order for access to the Digital Audio Recording (DAR)