In the Irish Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834400800207 |
| Published date | 01 April 1944 |
| Date | 01 April 1944 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts.
SUPREME
COURT
OF
EIRE
LIMITATION OF
RULING
IN
A CASE STATED
Cork County Council v. The Commissioners of Public
Works
W
HE
RE a case is
stated
under
the
Summary Juris-
diction Acts of 1857 (section 6) or 1879 (section 33),
the
higher court
may
not
only reverse, affirm or amend
the
determination of
the
lower court, or remit
it
to
that
court with their opinion thereon,
but
may
"make
such
other
order in relation to
the
matter
as to
the
Court
may
seem
fit." Where, however, a case is
stated
for
the
opinion of
the
Supreme Court of Eire under section 38
(3)
of
the
Courts
of Justice Act, 1936,
the
same
Judge
who
stated
the
case
should receive
the
Supreme Court's determination
and
then
pronounce judgment. The great expense
and
incon-
venience which
may
be caused
by
the
fact
that
the
sub-
section "emphasizes
the
individuality
rather
than
the
office of
the
Judge"
(per Sullivan C.J.) was well illustrated
by
the
Supreme Court's decision in Cork County Council
v. The Commissioners of Public
W~ks
(77
i-.
L.T.R.
195)
to
the
effect
that
where a
Judge
of
the
High Court on
Circuit who
states
a case for
the
opinion of
the
Supreme
Court dies before
the
determination of
the
case stated,
the
Supreme Court will
not
hear
the
case stated.
It
was
argued
by
counsel for
both
sides
that,
since
the
late
Meredith
J.,
who
stated
the
case,
had
adjourned
the
further hearing
to
Dublin,
it
could be
treated
as having been transferred
into
the
High Court, so
that
adetermination
by
the
Supreme
Court would enable
the
Judge
in whose list
the
undisposed
appeal was entered to dispose of it. .But
the
Chief Justice
pointed
out
that
the
case was
stated
for
the
purpose of
settling doubts in
the
mind of
the
Judge
who
stated
it
and
that
since
there
was no guarantee
that
another
Judge
1.7
To continue reading
Request your trial