Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal and upholds an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's application for various interlocutory reliefs in relation to the treatment of his mother, who was a ward of court, the placing of a stay on the proceedings and the plaintiff being prohibited from taking any proceedings which address either the life, the liberty, the health or the welfare of his mother other than by an application in the Wardship proceedings, on the grounds that: (a) having failed to make an application to the President of the High Court to reinstate the case, the appellant cannot make such an application for the first time to the Court of Appeal; (b) it is not open to appellants to decide that they will not participate in a hearing at first instance and then seek to have their case heard de novo on appeal; (c) complaints about the lawfulness of the order taking the appellant's mother into wardship had no bearing on any relief sought in the notice of motion; and (d) the appellant did not have locus standi to make a claim about anybody’s rights, save his own.
Noonan J (nem diss): Appeal of a decision of the High Court to dismiss application for various interlocutory reliefs in relation to the treatment of his mother, who was a ward of court, the placing of a stay on the proceedings and the plaintiff being prohibited from taking any proceedings which address either the life, the liberty, the health or the welfare of his mother other than by an application in the Wardship proceedings - appellant's mother was 97 years old and made a ward of court after she broke her hip - there was a serious breakdown in the relationship between the applicant and his sister with the hospital staff treating their mother - long history of litigation - appellant brought proceedings alleging, amongst other things, that his mother was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment amounting to torture and was falsely imprisoned at the hospital - applicant brought a motion seeking various interlocutory orders in relation to the treatment of the appellant's mother - appellant sought short service of the motion - the matter was adjourned to a summer vacation sitting - the matter was again adjourned to be heard by the President of the High Court on the 9th October 2017 - the appellant did not attend in court that day - application was dismissed and a stay was placed on the proceedings - Order 52, rule 12 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - whether the appellant's failure to attend was due to wilful default or negligence - whether the appellant had locus standi - appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.