Judgments: key cases in brief

Imprisonment for a knife attack did not depart enough from the norm to render the sentence unduly lenient. DPP vs Howe, IECA 43 (Court of Appeal, Hogan J, December 8th, 2014) The Court of Appeal dismisses the DPP's claim of undue leniency in respect of a custodial sentence of three years and six months, with the final two years suspended, for a serious assault involving an injured party's cheek being sliced open, on the grounds that it did not represent such a substantial departure from the norm as to warrant intervention.

– Ciarán Joyce BL

A €1,000 fine for production of false audit reports was unduly lenient given the repeated offending. DPP vs Forde, IECA 41 (Court of Appeal, Mahon J, November 28th, 2014) Court of Appeal allows appeal by DPP of a fine of €1,000 imposed for the production of false audit reports and substitutes on order that the offender undertake 200 hours of community service, on the grounds that the failure to take account of repeated offending and to identify the range of sentences appropriate on the scale amounted to an error in principle on the part of the sentencing judge.

– Ciarán Joyce BL

No significant error by financial ombudsman in dealing with complaint regarding mortgage protection policy. O'Regan vs Financial Services Ombudsman, IEHC 85 (High Court, O'Malley J, February 2nd, 2015) The High Court dismisses appeal from decision of the Financial Services Ombudsman not to uphold appellants' complaint regarding a financial institution's denial of their claim for serious illness coverage made against their mortgage protection policy, finding that there were no serious or significant errors in the ombudsman's decision or approach.

– Ian Fitzharris BL

Errors by the taxing master were not such as to warrant interference in an allowance made in respect of solicitor's fee. Sheehan vs Corr (2015) IEHC 99 (High Court, Kearns P, February 27th, 2015) The High Court dismisses an appeal from the taxing master and affirms a decision to allow fees of €276,000 to the solicitor of a plaintiff in a medical negligence case (who had claimed €485,000), finding that although some errors were made by the taxing master, none was such as to warrant any interference in the allowance made in respect of the solicitor's instruction fee in this case.

– Shane Kiely BL

Health and safety regulations did not impose a strict liability on employers in relation to use of safety equipment. Thompson vs Dublin Bus, IESC 22 (Supreme Court, Dunne J, March 5th, 2015) The Supreme Court allows an appeal from a decision of the High Court and determines a), that health and safety regulations did not impose an absolute or strict liability on a bus company in the context of personal injury proceedings brought by an employee and b), that the employer had taken appropriate measures to minimise the risks in relation to the use of safety equipment.

– Ian Fitzharris BL

The publication of an English-only booklet on local property tax was in breach of the legislation. Na Comisinéirí Ioncaim vs An Coimisinéir Teanga (Revenue Commissioners vs Language Commissioner), IEHC 110 (High Court, Mac Eochaidh J, February 20th, 2015) The High Court dismisses an appeal from decision of the Language Commissioner and affirms the ruling that distribution of an English-only booklet on the local property tax was in breach of the relevant legislation for failure to communicate with the public in the Irish language.

– Ciarán Joyce BL

There were no real or substantive grounds upon which to dismiss a bankruptcy summons. ACC Loan Management Ltd vs CM, IEHC 96 (High Court, Costello J, January 14th, 2015) The High Court refuses an application by a judgment debtor to dismiss a bankruptcy summons on the basis of alleged technical defects in the summons, finding that none of the applicant's claims amounted to a real and substantive issue from which the court could dismiss the summons.

– Ian Fitzharris BL

A burglary trial is to proceed where the camera box from which fingerprint lifts were taken was missing in evidence. Kearns vs DPP (2015) IESC 23 (Supreme Court, Dunne J, March 6th, 2015) The Supreme Court dismisses an appeal from the High Court and affirms the refusal to restrain the criminal trial of man accused of burglary, where a camera box from which fingerprint lifts had been taken was missing, on grounds that a), the appellant had not established that there was a genuine risk of an unavoidably unfair trial and b), it was for the trial judge to ensure that the appellant's right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution would be vindicated by making appropriate rulings on the issues before the court of trial.

– Ciáran Joyce BL

The full text of each judgment can be found on courts.ie. These reports are provided by Stare Decisis Hibernia: staredecisishibernia.com