According to Lynch J. in the High Court "This case arises out of circumstances which commenced more than a quarter of a century ago.

It is from that bottomless pit that the remaining plaintiffs [the appellants in the appeal] in this action hope by this litigation to escape"[4] The case before the High Court involved an allegation by Bula Limited (in receivership) and others (the plaintiffs in the original hearing) that the first fourteen defendants (the respondents in the appeal) failed to cooperate with them in extracting the zinc and lead core body from their neighbouring mine, contrary to a provision in the lease from the Minister for Energy.

[4] The plaintiffs claimed that by failing to cooperate with them, the defendants wrongfully conspired together to "inflict economic loss and damage"[4] to them to such an extent as to ruin their business.

[4] They did so with a view of operating the Navan Zinc and Lead Ore body for their own benefit along with having certain shares invested in it.

In relation to the application by way of notice of motion seeking to set aside the Supreme Court order, the appellants alleged that the previous Supreme Court judges (Barrington J and Keane J) who decided their appeal was connected to the defendants, something that "gave rise to a perception of bias.

"[4][5] Counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that the circumstances of this case was such that it is permissible for the Supreme Court to review its own judgement.

"[5][4][6] Denham J went on to note that "[i]f a judge considers that there may be a reasonable apprehension of bias, in accordance with convention, he or she would not sit.

"[7] McGuinness J similarly concluded that the professional links established did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.