Blehein v. Murphy [2000] IESC 1; [2000] 2 IR 231; [2000] 2 ILRM 481 (17th January, 2000)

Blehein v. Murphy [2000] IESC 1; [2000] 2 IR 231; [2000] 2 ILRM 481 (17th January, 2000)

There are no exceptional circumstances in this case to justify allowing the plaintiff to amend the notice of appeal to raise a constitutional issue not argued in the High Court. The established jurisprudence requires that such issues be fully argued in the High Court before being raised on appeal, and the cited precedents are exceptional and not applicable here.

Citation
[2000] 2 ILRM 481
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Louis Blehein; Defendants/respondents: First two defendants (two doctors); Defendant/respondent: Third named defendant; Defendants/respondents: Fourth, fifth and sixth named defendants (three members of the Garda Siochana); Notice Party (potential): Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Amend Notice of Appeal Before Supreme Court
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Constitutionality of Statute, Leave to Institute Proceedings, Amendment of Notice of Appeal, Original Jurisdiction, Appellate Jurisdiction, Presumption of Constitutionality
Constitutional Law Mental Health Law Civil Procedure Constitutionality of Statute Leave to Institute Proceedings Amendment of Notice of Appeal Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction +1 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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Blehein

Plaintiff/appellant

First two defendants (two doctors)

Defendants/respondents

Third named defendant

Defendant/respondent

Fourth, fifth and sixth named defendants (three members of the Garda Siochana)

Defendants/respondents

Attorney General

Notice Party (potential)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to Amend Notice of Appeal Before Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff may amend the notice of appeal to challenge the constitutionality of s.260 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945 for the first time in the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to permit raising a constitutional issue not argued in the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

There are no exceptional circumstances in this case to justify allowing the plaintiff to amend the notice of appeal to raise a constitutional issue not argued in the High Court. The established jurisprudence requires that such issues be fully argued in the High Court before being raised on appeal, and the cited precedents are exceptional and not applicable here.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application to amend the notice of appeal to include a constitutional challenge to s.260 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945 is refused.
  • The plaintiff’s appeal will proceed on the unamended notice of appeal against the High Court decision of 2 July 1999.