Long v Bord Bia & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a motion brought by the Plaintiff in relation to his application for leave to appeal a judgment of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Plaintiff sought to challenge the manner in which a national accreditation body, represented by the Defendants, implements a specific European Regulation. The Plaintiff's proceedings were struck out by a High Court judge, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, finding that the Plaintiff lacked standing and that his case was bound to fail. The Plaintiff then requested access to the transcript of the Court of Appeal's proceedings (the DAR transcript) to assist in preparing his leave to appeal application and any subsequent appeal, despite the appeal papers already being lodged with the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain a copy of the Court of Appeal's DAR transcript to assist in his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. The procedural requirements and considerations governing applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, including the relevance of transcript access.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court explained that the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to regulations and is exercised when cases involve matters of general public importance or the interests of justice. The Court noted the procedural rules governing applications for leave to appeal, specifying that such applications must detail constitutional grounds but do not require a transcript of prior proceedings. The Court distinguished between the application for leave and the provision of transcripts, emphasizing that obtaining the DAR transcript is not a prerequisite for the leave application, especially where the Supreme Court already has the relevant papers. The Court reasoned that if the Supreme Court deems the transcript necessary for its decision-making, it will request it. Consequently, access to the transcript was deemed irrelevant to the leave application, leading to refusal of the Plaintiff’s request.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the Plaintiff’s application for access to the DAR transcript.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff will not receive the transcript at this stage, but the Supreme Court retains discretion to request it if necessary. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling primarily clarifies procedural aspects concerning transcript access in the context of leave to appeal applications.