Launceston Property Finance DAC v Wright (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 146 (03 June 2020)

Launceston Property Finance DAC v Wright (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 146 (03 June 2020)

The applicant failed to identify any credible issue of constitutional justice or fundamental error affecting the result. The application was an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits or introduce new evidence, which does not meet the exceptional threshold for review. Only minor typographical and factual errors were corrected under the slip rule, having no impact on the outcome.

Citation
[2020] IECA 146
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Launceston Property Finance Designated Activity Company; Defendant/appellant: David Wright
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Judgment Motion to Review Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction to Review Final Judgment, Constitutional Justice, Slip Rule, Bankers' Books Evidence, Standard of Proof
Civil Procedure Banking Law Summary Judgment Jurisdiction to Review Final Judgment Constitutional Justice Slip Rule Bankers' Books Evidence Standard of Proof

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Launceston Property Finance Designated Activity Company

Plaintiff/respondent

David Wright

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Judgment Motion to Review Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to review or set aside its own final judgment in exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a breach of constitutional justice justifying review
  3. 3 Whether errors or new evidence justify reopening the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to identify any credible issue of constitutional justice or fundamental error affecting the result. The application was an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits or introduce new evidence, which does not meet the exceptional threshold for review. Only minor typographical and factual errors were corrected under the slip rule, having no impact on the outcome.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to review or set aside the substantive judgment is refused.
  • Judgment corrected under the slip rule to amend typographical and factual errors without affecting the outcome.