Canty v Ireland & ors [2011] IESC 27 (19 July 2011)

Canty v Ireland & ors [2011] IESC 27 (19 July 2011)

Section 123(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is constitutional as it clearly and unambiguously bars further appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court, falling within the exceptions permitted by Article 34.4.3º of the Constitution, and does not violate equality provisions.

Citation
[2011] IESC 27
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Jack Canty; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: The Private Residential Tenancies Board; Notice Party: David Connolly
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Appellate Jurisdiction, Finality of Decisions, Statutory Interpretation, Equality Before the Law
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Landlord and Tenant Law Appellate Jurisdiction Finality of Decisions Statutory Interpretation Equality Before the Law

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Canty

Applicant/appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent

The Private Residential Tenancies Board

Respondent

David Connolly

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 123(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is unconstitutional for barring appeal to the Supreme Court from the High Court
  2. 2 Whether the phrase 'final and conclusive' in s. 123(4) is sufficiently clear to exclude further appeal
  3. 3 Whether s. 123(4) violates equality provisions of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Section 123(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is constitutional as it clearly and unambiguously bars further appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court, falling within the exceptions permitted by Article 34.4.3º of the Constitution, and does not violate equality provisions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • No further appeal lies to the Supreme Court