Supreme Court directs Greendale motions to be heard before substantive appeals to ensure constitutional finality.

THE SUPREME COURT

[Appeal Nos: 275, 276, 277,

278, 279 and 280/2012 ]

Denham C.J.

Murray J.

Clarke J.

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

Between/

Michael F. Murphy

Plaintiff/Respondent

and

John Gilligan, Geraldine Gilligan, Darren Gilligan and Tracy Gilligan

Defendants/Appellants

Ruling of Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the 9th July, 2014.

1. In the light of the judgment now delivered the Court proposes to set out how these appeals should now be brought to finality. The

principal procedural question remaining is as to how to deal with what have come to be called "the Greendale motions". As noted in

the judgment just delivered, these motions seek leave to permit certain issues previously decided by this Court to be reopened.

Having regard to the terms of the Constitution itself and the jurisprudence of this Court, it is clear that such leave can only be

granted in very limited and exceptional circumstances.

2. The Court is aware of the views expressed by counsel on both sides in the course of case management to the effect that it would

be difficult to disentangle the issues which are the subject of the Greendale motions from at least many of the other issues which

potentially arise on these appeals. On that basis the Court is aware that counsel for both sides suggested that the Greendale motions

should be heard at the same time as the appeals not least because it was envisaged that there would be a saving of time and grater

clarity achieved by adopting such a procedure.

3. On the other hand, the Court is concerned that the high constitutional value which is placed on the finality of orders of this Court

should be adequately recognised. In those circumstances, and notwithstanding the logistical issues quite properly identified by

counsel, the Court will direct that the Greendale motions be heard in advance of the substantive appeals.

4. However, recognising that there are real logistical difficulties such as those identified by counsel, the Court will endeavour to

ensure that the same panel which hears the Greendale motions will also be assigned to hear the substantive appeals. It may be

necessary, for a proper disposition of the Greendale motions, for the Court to hear at least an outline of the arguments which would

be made on the appeals in respect of those issues if same are permitted to be raised on appeal. Should the Greendale motions be

successful, the panel hearing the substantive appeals will, therefore, have had the benefit of having heard such outline argument.

5. In order, therefore, that the Greendale motions come on for hearing, the Court will require that revised submissions, directed to the

Greendale motions only, should be filed, in the first instance by the moving parties with responding submissions on behalf of the

bureau. It is accepted, for the reasons noted earlier, that those submissions may, at least in outline, have to stray into the

substance of the issues which would be raised on the substantive appeals in the event that the Greendale motions are successful.

The matter will, therefore, be put in for further case management to ensure that those motions can be heard in a timely fashion.