Somers v Kennedy (Approved) [2023] IECA 103 (20 April 2023)

Somers v Kennedy (Approved) [2023] IECA 103 (20 April 2023)

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable ground of appeal, admitted the correctness of the High Court's decision to strike out his case, and sought an extension of time for an improper purpose, namely to revive a complaint before the LRSA. The public interest in finality of litigation and the absence of bona fide grounds justified refusal of the application.

Citation
[2023] IECA 103
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Eric John Somers; Defendant/respondent: William Kennedy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
motions refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Absolute Privilege, Striking Out Proceedings, Professional Misconduct Complaints, Finality of Litigation
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Extension of Time to Appeal Absolute Privilege Striking Out Proceedings Professional Misconduct Complaints Finality of Litigation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric John Somers

Plaintiff/applicant

William Kennedy

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the High Court's order striking out his action
  2. 2 Whether there are arguable grounds of appeal against the High Court's decision
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's comments affected the applicant's complaint before the Legal Services Regulatory Authority

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable ground of appeal, admitted the correctness of the High Court's decision to strike out his case, and sought an extension of time for an improper purpose, namely to revive a complaint before the LRSA. The public interest in finality of litigation and the absence of bona fide grounds justified refusal of the application.

Court Disposition

motions refused