Friends First Managed Pension Funds Ltd v Smithwick & Ors [2019] IECA 197 (16 July 2019)

Friends First Managed Pension Funds Ltd v Smithwick & Ors [2019] IECA 197 (16 July 2019)

The application failed to demonstrate any material error or issue of constitutional justice sufficient to warrant the exercise of the Court's exceptional jurisdiction to reconsider its judgment. The alleged errors and arguments advanced related to the merits and did not meet the high threshold required.

Citation
[2019] IECA 197
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Friends First Managed Pension Funds Limited; Defendant/respondent: Paul Smithwick; Third Party: A. T. Uniforms Limited; Third Party: Thomas Kennedy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Reconsideration
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Exceptional Jurisdiction, Finality of Judgments, Reconsideration of Judgments, Bias Allegations, Surrender of Lease
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Exceptional Jurisdiction Finality of Judgments Reconsideration of Judgments Bias Allegations Surrender of Lease

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Friends First Managed Pension Funds Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Paul Smithwick

Defendant/respondent

A. T. Uniforms Limited

Third Party

Thomas Kennedy

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should exercise its exceptional jurisdiction to reconsider its judgment
  2. 2 Whether alleged errors in the judgment warrant reopening the decision
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was subjected to unfair procedure or bias

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed to demonstrate any material error or issue of constitutional justice sufficient to warrant the exercise of the Court's exceptional jurisdiction to reconsider its judgment. The alleged errors and arguments advanced related to the merits and did not meet the high threshold required.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for reconsideration of the judgment refused.
  • Judgment to be circulated in final form.