Feeney J

Beneficial owners of shares entitled to challenge state investment in financial institution.

By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J, Ireland High Court No Comments Tags: ,

In Re Irish Life and Permanent Ltd; Dowling v. Minister for Finance 2012 [IEHC] 89
(High Court, Feeney J, 2 March 2012)

High Court refuses preliminary application made by respondent in relation to locus standi of applicants to set aside directions order, and holds that beneficial owners of shares were entitled to make the relevant application.

Preliminary application – locus standi – application by respondent to dismiss application – s. 9 of the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010 – ex parte order for directions – order to facilitate investment by Minister for Finance in public More

Infant daughter of refugee not entitled to Irish citizenship.

By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J, Ireland High Court No Comments Tags: ,

B K v. Minister for Justice [2011] IEHC 526
(High Court, Feeney J, 21 December 2011)

High Court refuses judicial review of decision to refuse passport and citizenship to infant daughter of refugee.

Judicial review – refusal of citizenship to four-year-old child – daughter of refugee – Part II of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 – Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 – requirement that parent reside in Ireland for a period of not More

Prisoner fails to have “screen visits” in prison judicially reviewed

By Ciaran Joyce BL in Feeney J, Ireland High Court, Uncategorized No Comments Tags: ,

Kirby  v. Governor of Limerick Prison [2012] IEHC 69

(High Court, Feeney  J, 27 January 2012)

High Court (Feeney J) refuses leave to seek judicial review of decision to impose “screen visits” at Limerick Prison due to insufficient information provided by applicant.

 

Judicial Review – “screen visits”  – ­Limerick Prison – order of mandamus inappropriate, no demand and  refusal – potential claim of certiorari  – quash a decision of a public body made in excess of or in abuse of its jurisdiction  – application fails to provide sufficient information or facts which could lead to a court granting an order of certiorari – inadequate information More

Court dismisses challenges to proceeds of crime legislation under ECHR.

By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags: ,

Gilligan v. Murphy [2011] IEHC 465
(High Court, Feeney J, 20 December 2011)

High Court dismisses applications by plaintiffs seeking to challenge proceeds of crime legislation under European Convention of Human Rights. (Full text.)

Proceeds of crime – incorporation of European Convention on Human Rights into Irish law – whether incorporation prospective only, or retrospective – alleged breaches of Convention prior to incorporation – order made under section 3 of the More

Court orders disposal of properties found to have been purchased with proceeds of crime.

By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags:

Murphy v. Gilligan [2011] IEHC 464
(High Court, Feeney J, 20 December 2011)

High Court grants disposal orders in respect of properties found to have been purchased with proceeds of crime, and: a) provides that 20% of proceeds of one house be paid to second defendant; and b) places stay on orders for sale of other properties to allow occupants to seek alternative accommodation. (Full text.)

Proceeds of crime – Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 – sections 3(3) and 4 of the 1996 Act – applications for disposal of properties – prior application to restrain disposal under s 3(3) – forfeiture of property proven to be the proceeds of crime – More

Industrial relations legislation declared unconstitutional, and employment regulations orders thus invalid.

By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J 2 Comments Tags: ,

John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd v. Catering Joint Labour Committee [2011] IEHC 277 (7 July 2011)

High Court (Feeney J) grants declarations i) that certain provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 and 1990 were unconstitutional and ii) that an Employment Regulations Order made by the defendant was invalid as a consequence. (Full text.)

Industrial relations – constitutionality of statute – fixing of statutory minimum remuneration of workers – Industrial Relations Act 1946, ss 42, 43, 45 – Industrial Relations Act 1990, s 48 – Employment Regulations Orders (EROs) – More

Criminal Assets Bureau v. AW – HC – Criminal assets bureau, prohibition on disposing of property

By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags:

Criminal Assets Bureau v. AW [2010] IEHC 166 (30 April 2010)

High Court (Feeney J) grants order prohibiting respondents from disposing or dealing with certain items of property. (Full text.)

Proceeds of crime – s 3 Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 – application to prohibit respondents from disposing of or dealing with items of property – procedure in considering application – potential unfairness of admitting hearsay evidence – failure to establish provenance of assets – risk of injustice – discretion of court.

F. McK. v. G.W.D. (Proceeds of crime outside State) [2004] 2 I.R. 470
F. McK. v. T. H. (Proceeds of Crime)[2007] 4 I.R. 186
Murphy v. G.M. [2001] 4 I.R. 113
McCann v. United Kingdom (ECHR 19009/04)
CAB v. O’B & Anor. (Unreported, High Court, Feeney J., 12/01/2010)

Kenny v. Trinity College – Dismissal of action, planning injunction

By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags:

Kenny v. Trinity College [2011] IEHC 202 (15 April 2011)

High Court (Feeney J) grants order dismissing proceedings seeking planning injunction as being bound to fail. (Full text.)

Application to dismiss proceedings – res judicata – determination of previous action by Supreme Court as being frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process – s 160, planning and Development Act 2000 – planning injunction – development of student residences – Isaac Wunder order imposed in previous action – jurisdiction of court to strike out pleadings – whether plaintiff seeking to pursue non-realistic and pointless matter – whether plaintiff had identified any factual matter which had not been considered in previous action – immaterial variations in development.

Mahon v. Butler [1997] 3 I.R. 369
Sun Fat Chan v. Osseous Ltd. [1992] 1 I.R. 425
Aer Rianta c.p.t. v. Ryanair Ltd. [2004] 1 I.R. 506
Barry v. Buckley [1981] I.R. 306
Supermacs Ireland Ltd. v. Katesan (Naas) Ltd. [2000] 4 I.R. 273
Fay v. Tegral Pipes Ltd. [2005] 2 I.R. 261
Carroll v. Ryan [2003] 1 I.R. 309
Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
Woodhouse v. Consigna [2002] 1 WLR. 2558
Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co. [2002] 2 A.C. 1
Bula Ltd. (In Receivership) v. Crowley [2009] IESC 35
Kenny v. Dublin City Council (Unreported, Supreme Court, 5th March, 2009)
Cork County Council v. Cliftonhall Ltd High Court, Finnegan J, 6 April 2001
O’Connell v. Dungarvan Energy Ltd. [2001] WJSC-HC5119 (Unreported judgment of 27th February, 2001)
Lever (Finance) Ltd. v. Westminster Corporation [1973] All E.R. 496
Kenny v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 1) [2001] 1 I.R. 565
Commission v. Ireland Case C – 215/06

Collins v. Gleeson – Damages in lieu of specific performance, doctrine of frustration

By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags: ,

Collins v. Gleeson [2011] IEHC 200 (12 May 2011)

High Court (Feeney J) awards vendor damages of €4,580,000 in lieu of specific performance of contract for sale, and dismisses purchaser’s counterclaim alleging frustration. (Full text.)

Specific performance – damages in lieu – purported repudiation – whether contract subject to planning permission – whether parties intended that contract would be subject to planning permission – doctrine of frustration – whether contract incapable of being performed – delays in completion of waste water facility by local authority – failure of vendor to extend completion date – whether delays foreseeable at time contract executed – assessment of damages.

The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64
Neville & Sons. Ltd. v. Guardian Builders Ltd. [1995] 1 ILRM 1
National Carriers Ltd. v. Panalpina (Northern) Ltd. [1981] AC 675
Drocarne Ltd. v. Seamus Murphy Properties and Developments Ltd (High Court, 17 April 2008)
Duffy v. Ridley Properties Limited [2008] 4 I.R. 282
Hedley v. Backsingdale [1854] 9 EX CH 341

Murphy -v- Gilligan – Proceeds of crime, variation of order, source of funds

By Mark Tottenham BL in Feeney J No Comments Tags:

Murphy -v- Gilligan [2011] IEHC 62 (Feeney J, 27 January 2011)

High Court finds that respondents failed in discharging onus of proving that properties purchased with funds other than proceeds of crime, with the exception of a portion of the funds used by fourth respondent to purchase dwelling house, and that no other injustice arose from interlocutory orders. (Full text.)

Proceeds of crime – variation of interlocutory order – s 3(3) Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 – delay in hearing of Criminal Assets Bureau application – proportionality of legislation – contradictory and false evidence in affidavits sworn by respondent – claim by respondent that monies for purchase of equestrian centre were profits from gambling – evidence from bookmakers as to respondent’s betting activities – whether respondent discharged onus of proving that funds emanated from sources other than crime – whether continuing order would result in serious risk of injustice.

Murphy v. Gilligan (Unreported, Supreme Court decision of 13th May, 1997)
Murphy v. Gilligan [2009] 2 I.R. 271
MFM v. BM High Court, Finnegan P, 3 November 2006
M(MF) v. C(M) and M(G) and Ors. [2002] WJSC-HC-3759
Murphy v. G.M High Court, O’Higgins J, 4 June 1999
Murphy v. G.M. and Ors. [2001] 4 I.R. 113
McK v. F. High Court, Finnegan P, 24 February 2003
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Gilligan [2006] 1 I.R. 107
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Gilligan (No. 3) [2006] 3 I.R. (273)
McIntosh v. Lord Advocate [2001] 3 WLR 107
Criminal Assets Bureau v. O’B. and Anor. (Unreported, High Court, Feeney J., 12th January, 2010)

1 2
Subscribe

Get every new post on this site delivered to your Inbox.

Join other subscriberss: