The Supreme Court on 17 December 2015 granted Teresa Ennis leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal order in her case against the Child and Family Agency and Jarlath Egan. The order, made on 20 May 2015 and perfected on 25 May 2015, found that the Agency did not owe her a duty of care.
Ms Ennis lodged her application late, outside the time limit set by Order 58 Rule 16(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The Supreme Court extended the time for lodging it, so the application could be considered despite the delay.
The court said her explanation for the delay, and the points the respondents raised about it, will be taken into account when it deals with the costs of the application and the appeal. That means the delay remains relevant to costs, even though it did not prevent the application from proceeding.
The Supreme Court said the High Court and the Court of Appeal had divergent views on whether a duty of care existed. It pointed to two questions in particular: whether damage was reasonably foreseeable, and whether it was fair, reasonable and just to impose such a duty.
A duty of care is the legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid harming another person. Whether one exists is the first question in a negligence claim.
The court held that the Court of Appeal's decision involves a matter of general public importance, which is one of the constitutional tests for a second appeal. It certified two questions for the appeal.
The first is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the Agency did not owe Ms Ennis a duty of care in the circumstances of the case. The second is whether, if the Agency did owe such a duty, it was in breach of it.
The court also noted that her application contained a detailed recital of the lower courts' findings and lengthy, generalised grounds of appeal. It reminded the parties that Practice Direction SC16 says grounds should not normally exceed two pages and that the court anticipates brevity and clarity.