Supreme Courts around the World: the last three months in Hong Kong and Ireland
22 Monday Feb 2010
Cathryn Hopkins, Olswang LLP News Articles, Features
Share it
A selection of judgments of the Supreme Courts of Hong Kong and Ireland from November 2009 – January 2010 are summarised below.
Hong Kong
Dynasty Line Ltd v Sukamto Sia and another [2009] HKCFA 101 (26 November 2009) The Court of Final Appeal considered whether money paid into court by Dynasty Line Ltd under an undertaking in damages in support of a Mareva injunction should be retained in court and made available to satisfy outstanding costs orders made in favour of Sukamto Sia.
Shui on Credit Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2009] HKCFA 102 (30 November 2009) The Court of Final Appeal considered the tax liability arising from a scheme of transactions that was effected between several companies in the Shui On group.
Pasa Dnaville Dizon v HKSAR [2009] HKCFA 110 (17 December 2009) The Applicant had sought leave to institute a judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration of Hong Kong to refuse her application for a further extension of stay in Hong Kong. The appeal was dismissed.
B v The Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [2010] HKCFA 4 (28 January 2010) The Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong were invited to consider the legal position in a case where a bribe was offered in Hong Kong to a public official of a jurisdiction outside Hong Kong, and whether, accordingly, the Respondent had jurisdiction to issue notices under s.14(1)(d) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance requiring the Appellant to appear before an investigating officer. The Court held that the Respondent did have jurisdiction.
Ireland
Equality Authority v Portmarnock Golf Club & ors and Cuddy & another v Equality Authority & ors [2009] IESC 73 (3 November 2009) The Supreme Court considered the issue of “discriminating clubs” under the Equal Status Act 2000.
Competition Authority v Beef Industry Developments Society Limited & another [2009] IESC 72 (3 November 2009) The Supreme Court considered appeals from both sides in a High Court decision that a Beef Industry Developments Society Limited (“BIDS”) scheme did not fall under the prohibition contained in Article 81(1) EC Treaty. The two-member panel decided that the case be remitted to the High Court for the purposes of enabling that court to conduct a fuller analysis of the scheme under Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.
Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Kizelaviciús [2009] IESC 74 (11 November 2009) The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against a High Court decision to surrender the Applicant to Lithuania under a European arrest warrant.
Sandy Lane Hotel Limited v Times Newspapers Limited & ors [2009] IESC 75 (16 November 2009) The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against a High Court decision allowing the substitution of the Claimant’s name in libel proceedings.
Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Gheorghe & another [2009] IESC 76 (18 November 2009) The Supreme Court considered appeals against High Court orders for each of the Defendants to be delivered to the judicial authorities of Romania pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders of the High Court.
S v S [2009] IESC 77 (19 November 2009) The Supreme Court considered child custody under the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Acts 1991 and the Hague Convention.
Mahon Tribunal v Keena & another [2009] IESC 78 (26 November 2009) The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Applicant journalists against an order of the High Court. The High Court order required the journalists to comply with an order of the Respondent Tribunal to appear before the Tribunal to answer questions regarding the source of a leaked letter that was subsequently published by the journalists. In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the balance between the freedom of expression of the Applicants in publishing the letter and the public interest of the Tribunal in tracing the source of the leak swung in favour of the Applicants. However, as the Applicants had deliberately destroyed the letter and all related correspondence, costs were awarded in favour of the Respondent.
Cahill v DCU [2009] IESC 80 (10 December 2009) The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court judgment that found for the plaintiff / respondent Cahill, who argued that his purported dismissal by Dublin City University, the defendant / appellant, from his post as Associate Professor in the School of Biotechnology, was invalid.
McD v L & another [2009] IESC 81 (10 December 2009) This appeal concerned the rights of the biological father of a child born as a result of sperm donation and artificial insemination. It also concerned the rights of the child.
Roche v Roche & ors [2009] IESC 82 (15 December 2009) The Supreme Court was invited to consider whether the constitutional protection given to the unborn extends to embryos which have been frozen and stored in a clinic.
Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Stafford [2009] IESC 83 (17 December 2009) This appeal concerned the validity of a European arrest warrant.
Walsh & others v Garda Complaints Board & another [2010] IESC 2 (18 January 2010) The Supreme Court of Ireland considered the interpretation of the six-month time limit for making a complaint to the Garda Síochána Complaints Board (the Garda Síochána being the Irish police force).
DPP v Cash [2010] IESC 1 (18 January 2010) Cash had been charged with the offence of entering a building as a trespasser with intent to commit an arrestable offence therein. The appeal in this case turned on the point of whether the prosecution had to prove that fingerprint evidence, which had not been produced in evidence at trial, was lawfully obtained.
Meadows v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3 (21 January 2010) The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the judgment and order of Mr Justice Gilligan in the High Court, where he declined leave to apply for relief by way of judicial review to the Applicant against the decision to deport her back to Nigeria after her claim for asylum had been rejected.
Gormley v D.J. Smyth & another [2010] IESC 5 (28 January 2010) This appeal considered the nature of offences which can be tried either summarily or by indictment.
Sparrow v Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food & another (29 January 2010) In this appeal, Sparrow was seeking to prohibit his trial in the District Court on charges relating to foot and mouth disease form on the basis that his health was so poor that such a trial would put his life at risk. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that medical evidence supporting the applicant’s case did not “trump” any judicial determination and that, in the circumstances, the trial should go ahead so long as the judge ensured that the proceedings were fair and using their discretion to assess the situation before them at all times.