By Mark Tottenham BL in Macken J No Comments Tags: Security for costs
Moorview Developments Ltd v. First Active PLC [2012] IESC 22
(Supreme Court, Macken J (nem diss), 23 February 2012)
Supreme Court grants orders for security for costs in respect of appeals from the High Court of seven sets of proceedings.
Applications for security for costs in respect of appeals from High Court – seven sets of proceedings under appeal – whether impecuniosity of plaintiffs was caused by the respondents to the appeals – whether appeals in good faith – whether issues of More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Macken J No Comments Tags: European arrest warrant, Extradition
Minister for Justice v. Murrell 2011 [IESC] 35
(Supreme Court, Macken J, 29 July 2011)
Supreme Court dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms decision to postpone surrender under European arrest warrant pending determination of trial in Ireland.
European arrest warrant – postponement of surrender to issuing state pending determination of trial before Irish courts – charge sheet struck out in District Court and replaced with new charge sheet – whether charges actually pending at relevant More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Macken J No Comments Tags: Criminal judicial review, Criminal law
J.Harris (Assemblers) v. DPP [2012] IESC 6
(Supreme Court, Macken J (with her, O’Donnell J and McKechnie J), 1 February 2012)
Supreme Court dismisses appeal from decision of High Court to refuse to restrain criminal trial. (Full text.)
Judicial review – appeal from refusal of judicial review in High Court (Hedigan J) – application to restrain criminal trial – whether fair trial possible – delay – sale of lorry involved in fatal accident – inspection of lorry by Health and Safety More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Ireland Court of Criminal Appeal, Macken J, Macken J No Comments Tags: Criminal law, Rules of evidence
DPP v. Hardiman [2011] IECCA 69 (19 October 2011)
Court of Criminal Appeal (Macken J, judgment of court) refuses leave to appeal from conviction of buggery and sexual assault. (Full text.)
Criminal law – appeal from conviction and sentence – convictions of buggery and indecent assault – failure to sever indictment – failure to discharge jury – admissibility of evidence – direction to jury – application to sever indictment made at close of prosecution case – evidence More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Ireland Court of Criminal Appeal, Macken J, Macken J No Comments Tags: Criminal law
DPP v. Hayes [2011] IECCA 65 (19 October 2011)
Court of Criminal Appeal (Macken J, judgment of court) refuses leave to appeal from conviction of assault causing serious harm. (Full text.)
Criminal law – appeal from conviction – assault causing serious harm – role of judge in course of trial – questions asked by judges of witnesses – questions posed to elicit more complete explanation of witness’s answer – whether More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Ireland Court of Criminal Appeal, Macken J, Macken J No Comments Tags: Criminal law, Sentencing
DPP v. Dunbar [2011] IECCA 68 (19 October 2011)
Court of Criminal Appeal (Macken J, judgment of court) refuses leave to appeal against severity of life sentence imposed for conviction of manslaughter. (Full text.)
Criminal law – severity of sentence – conviction of manslaughter – life sentence – alleged bias – weight placed on prior convictions – weight placed on disposal of deceased’s body – whether sentencing judge correctly applied relevant principles of law – whether More
By Mark Tottenham BL in Macken J No Comments Tags: Judicial review, Tribunals of enquiry
Caldwell v. Mahon Tribunal [2011] IESC 21 (28 July 2011)
Supreme Court (Macken J, nem diss) allows appeal from decision of High Court (Hanna J) to refuse judicial review, and holds that tribunal of enquiry acted in breach of natural and constitutional justice in failing to allow applicant to make submissions in advance of public hearing. (Full text.)
Judicial review – decision to embark on public hearings of tribunal – alleged failure to give applicant an opportunity to make submissions – breach of natural and constitutional justice – dismissal of claim in High Court – appeal moot by virtue of passage of time – costs – terms of reference of tribunal – whether tribunal acting ultra vires – whether tribunal entitled to proceed “as it sees fit” – whether a person whose interests could be affected by a decision were entitled to have notice of intention and to have his representations considered
Bailey & Others v. Flood (Unreported, High Court, 6th March, 2000)
The State (O’Keeffe) v. An Bord Pleanala[1993] 1 I.R. 33
Redmond v. Flood [1999] 3 I.R. 79
In Re. Haughey [1971] I.R. 217
Haughey v. Moriarty [1999] 3 I.R. 1
O’Callaghan v. McMahon [2005] IESC 9
Lawlor v. Flood[1999] 3 I.R. 107
Dellway Investments & Others v. National Asset Management Agency & Others (Unreported, The Supreme Court, 12th April, 2011)
Wiseman v. Borneman [1971] A.C. 297
By Mark Tottenham BL in Denham J, Fennelly J, Macken J No Comments Tags: Freedom of Information
Rotunda Hospital v. Information Commissioner [2011] IESC 26 (19 July 2011)
Supreme Court (Fennelly J, Macken J; Denham J diss) allows appeal from decision of the High Court (McCarthy J, 2 July 2009), and determines that the appellant hospital was entitled to refuse to release information given in confidence by a woman who gave birth in 1922.
Macken J (Full text.): Freedom of information – obligation to provide information – information concerning age of woman who gave birth to child in 1922 – information given in confidence – whether information was “personal information” within meaning of s 2(1), Freedom of Information Act 1997 – whether overriding public interest in persons having fullest possible information on their origins – “private or secret matters” – statutory interpretation – “exempt records” – whether hospital wrong in law to refuse disclosure of information – whether 1997 Act applied to records created prior to its commencement.
Fennelly J (Full text.): Innocuous or trivial piece of information – obligation to apply freedom of information legislation – whether 1997 Act applied to old records – whether document contained “personal information” within the meaning of section 28 – whether document contained information imparted in confidence – danger of abuse by infringement of confidentiality – whether information was in the public domain – relevance of availability of information from other public source.
Denham J (Full text.): Whether 1997 Act applied to records created in 1922 – whether information exempt from disclosure – s 6(5)(b), 1997 Act – “personal information about the person” seeking access to the records – regulations concerning a deceased individual – confidentiality – section 26(3) – provision for discretion where public interest served by granting request – information requested by son of deceased person.
B v. Brisbane North Regional Health Authority [1994] 1 QAR 279
Sheedy v Information Commissioner [2005] I.R., 272
I. O’T v. B [1998] 2 I.R. 321
H.S.E. v. The Information Commissioner [2009] ILRM 44
Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd., v Campbell [1948] 65 RPC 203
Coco v. A. N. Clark (Engineering) Ltd [1968] FSR 415
House of Spring Gardens Ltd. v. Point Blank Ltd. [1984] I.R. 611
Howard v. The Commissioner of Public Works & Others [1994] 1 I.R. 101
Australian Broadcasting Authority v. Lenah Game Meats [2001] HCA 63
C.C. v Ireland and others [2005] IESC 48
Odievre v. France [2004] 38 E.H.R.R. 43
By Mark Tottenham BL in Denham J, Fennelly J, Finnegan J, Hardiman J, Macken J, Murray CJ 1 Comment Tags: NAMA, Natural justice
Dellway Investments & ors v NAMA & ors [2011] IESC 14 (Supreme Court, 12 April 2011)
Supreme Court allows partial appeal from High Court, and makes declaration that appellants are entitled to be duly informed by NAMA of any intention to acquire eligible bank assets related to their credit facilities, in order that they may make appropriate representations.
Murray CJ: Section 84 of National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 – right to make representations – whether borrowers entitled to be informed of NAMA’s intention to consider acquiring eligible bank assets – principles of constitutional justice – powers of NAMA above those of ordinary banks. (Full text.)
Denham J: Fair procedures – interference with constitutionally protected right – mootness – right to be heard – exceptions to general principles as to rights – urgency – whether hearing by NAMA would be unworkable – necessity. (Full text.)
Hardiman J: Entitlement to notice that loans being compulsorily taken by NAMA – fair procedures – consequences of acquisition – significance of NAMA’s own business plan – estimated life of NAMA at 7-10 years – significance of “impairment” of loans – reputational damage of loans being acquired by NAMA – right to a hearing – interest in outcome of administrative decision – right to fair hearing by unbiased body – exclusion of rights. (Full text.)
Fennelly J: Effect on value of property of NAMA decision to acquire – effect on borrower – effect on other contractual relationships – effect on reputation. (Full text.)
Macken J: Right to be heard as general principle of law – whether right can be set aside – addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests. (Full text.)
Finnegan J: NAMA’s statutory exemptions and powers in relation to mortgages – consequences for mortgagor of transfer of mortgage to NAMA – mortgagee’s duty of care to mortgagor – rights of mortgagee on transfer of mortgage. (Full text.)
East Donegal Co-operative Limited v. Attorney General [1970] I.R. 317
Glover v. BLN Limited [1973] I.R. 388
McCormack v. Garda Siochana Complaints Board [1997] 2 I.R. 489
Irwin v. Deasy [2010] IESC 35 (unreported, Supreme Court, 14th May, 2010)
The State (Furey) v. Minister for Defence [1988] I.L.R.M. 89
Ryan v. Attorney General [1965] I.R. 294
The State (Irish Pharmaceutical Union) v. Employment Appeals Tribunal [1987] I.L.R.M. 36
McDonald v. Bord Na gCon [1965] I.R. 217
Flanagan v. U.C.D. [1988] I.R. 724
O’Callaghan v. Commissioners of Public Works [1985] I.L.R.M. 364
O’Byrne v. Minister for Finance [1959] I.R. 1;
Flynn v. Allen (Unreported, High Court, Lynch J, 2nd May, 1988)
Khan v. Health Service Executive [2008] IEHC 234
Carna Foods Limited v. Eagle Star [1995] 1 IR 526
Clarke v. Judge Hogan [1995] 1 IR 310
The State (Philpott) v. Registrar of Titles [1986] ILRM 499
McCormack v. The Garda Síochána Complaints Board [1997] 2 I.R. 489
Cox v. Ireland [1992] 2 IR 503
Chestvale Properties Limited v. Glackin [1993] 2 IR 35
Haughey v. Moriarty [1999] 3 IR 1
O’Ceallaigh v. An Bord Altranais [2000] 4 I.R. 54
D.K. v. Crowley [2002] IR 744
MacPharthaláin v. Commissioners of Public Works [1992] 1 I.R. 111; [1994] 3 I.R. 353
Re: Wells [1933] Ch. 29
Howard v Harris [1683] 1 Vern. 190,
Spurgeon v Collier [1785] 1 Eden. 55
Samuel v Jarrow Timber and Wood Paving Corp. Limited [1904] A.C. 323.
Kennedy v DeTrafford [1896] 1 Ch. 762
Holohan v Friends Provident and Century Life [1966] I.R. 1,
Farrar v Farrars Limited [1889] 40 Ch. D. 395
Gale v First National Building Society [1985] I.R. 609
National Bank of Australasia v United Hand-in-Hand and Band of Hope Company [1879] 4 A.C. 391
Turner v Smith [1901] 1 Ch. 213,
Simmons v Montague [1909] 1 I.R. 87,
Re Tahiti Cotton Company Ex p. Sargent [1874] L.R. 17 Eq. 273
Ashenhurst v James [1745] Atk. 270
Earl of Macclesfield v Fitton [1683] 1 Vern. 168