Court of Appeal overules High Court in Millar case! Upholds FSO's finding.

Very disappointing indeed, The July deadline the minister committed to is fast approaching, I'm not holding my breath now at this stage .... Shouldn't the proposed lower fixed terms that were to be offered not be communicated by now . Is he hauling them back in again ?
 
Very disappointing. Also gutted for the Millars who spearheaded this and took out the case which was not an easy thing to do.

Is that the end of the court battles on this? At the Ballsbridge meeting there was mention of test cases to come before the courts re: European contract law and the ability of the main party (ie the bank) to set a clause that could unilaterally alter a condition (ie the interest rates). Not sure if I undersood that correctly or am explaining it correctly. Maybe someone could clarify?
 
Could this open the door for BoI to take over the rest of their residential mortgage book ?
 
Millar's can appeal judgment to the Supreme Court, but only on a point of law. Maybe Ross Maguire should contact them.
 
Asphyxia said:
Millar's can appeal judgment to the Supreme Court, but only on a point of law. Maybe Ross Maguire should contact them.
Click to expand...

There is no automatic right of appeal. Decisions of the Court of Appeal are generally final and permission must be sought from the Supreme Court to lodge an appeal. Given the current backlog of appeals before the Supreme Court, it is very unlikely IMO that the Supreme Court would permit an appeal to be lodged in this case.
 
Millar's should quote the Pannon case (ECJ c-243/08 refers) to the Supreme Court if it wishes to appeal the Judgments. The Supreme Court will be then bound to hear the appeal, if they do not hear the appeal; the Millar's can complain to the European Commission regarding same.
 
No, the Supreme Court is not bound to hear an appeal from any judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The Millars can certainly make whatever complaint they like to the European Commission.
 
The Appeal by the F.S.O. is unlawful in the fact that the F.S.O. breached the strict provision of section 57(cm)4 of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2004. (i.e.- the question of law was not identifiable in the order ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are significant grounds for the complainants to apply for a Supreme Court Appeal in this matter, namely, due to the significant public interest and importance of the case, the significant legal errors in both Geoghegan and Kelly's judgments, coupled by the F..S.O. breaching its own statutory provisions in the investigation of the complaint in the first instance, and finally there are breaches of due process in the breaching of SI 485/2014 and order 86a of the superior courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top