Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd & Anor v Ireland & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 275 (05 December 2022)

Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd & Anor v Ireland & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 275 (05 December 2022)

The applicant failed to meet the exceptionally high threshold required to reopen or set aside a final judgment under the Greendale/Nash jurisprudence. The arguments advanced were substantially the same as those already considered and rejected in the substantive appeal. There was no fundamental denial of justice,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] IECA 275
Parties
Appellant: Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd; Applicant/appellant: Piotr Skoczylas; Respondents/respondents: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Post Judgment Motion / Court of Appeal Judgment on Motion to Set Aside/vary Previous Judgment and for Stay
Outcome
Application refused; proceedings struck out
Legal Topics
Finality of Judgments, Strike Out Applications, Köbler Doctrine, Jurisdiction to Reopen Judgments, Right of Access to Court, Primacy of EU Law, Procedural Fairness
Constitutional Law European Union Law Civil Procedure Finality of Judgments Strike Out Applications Köbler Doctrine Jurisdiction to Reopen Judgments Right of Access to Court +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd

Appellant

Piotr Skoczylas

Applicant/appellant

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Post Judgment Motion / Court of Appeal Judgment on Motion to Set Aside/vary Previous Judgment and for Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should set aside or vary its previous judgment under the Greendale/Nash jurisprudence
  2. 2 Whether the applicant met the high threshold for reopening a final judgment
  3. 3 Whether a stay should be granted pending the outcome of related constitutional proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to meet the exceptionally high threshold required to reopen or set aside a final judgment under the Greendale/Nash jurisprudence. The arguments advanced were substantially the same as those already considered and rejected in the substantive appeal. There was no fundamental denial of justice, breach of constitutional or EU law rights, or procedural unfairness. The application for a stay was refused as there was no basis to delay finality pending other proceedings. No reference to the CJEU was warranted as the issues raised did not necessitate such a referral for the determination of the motion.

Court Disposition

Application refused; proceedings struck out

Orders

  • Refusal of Greendale and Nash reliefs to set aside or vary the judgment of 31 January 2022
  • Refusal of stay on proceedings pending outcome of constitutional proceedings