Law Judgments

The Circuit Court should not have determined the custody of child on an application for relocation. RL v Judge Heneghan IECA 120 (Court of Appeal, Hogan J, June 12th, 2015) The Court of Appeal allows an appeal from High Court and grants judicial review of a Circuit Court decision to transfer primary residence of a child to the father, when the matter before the court was an application by the mother to relocate the child to the UK, on the grounds that 1), the Circuit Court did not have the jurisdiction to determine the custody of the child where the only issue before the court was the relocation issue and 2), fair procedures were breached when the court granted reliefs that materially strayed beyond the scope of the pleadings and in respect of which the mother had no proper advance notice.

– Ciarán Joyce BL

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal concluded that newspaper articles were fake. AWM v Refugee Appeals Tribunal IEHC 365 (High Court, Mac Eochaidh J, June 15th, 2015) The High Court grants leave to seek judicial review of decision to refuse refugee status to a Kenyan national, on the grounds that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had irrationally concluded that two newspaper articles submitted in support of the applicant's claim were not authentic.

– James Cross BL

The surrender to Poland is ordered of man who "fled" for the purpose of evading justice. Minister for Justice v Szall IEHC 374 (High Court, McDermott J, June 3rd, 2015) The High Court, on foot of a European arrest warrant, orders the surrender to Poland of a man convicted of six offences and sentenced to three years imprisonment, on the grounds that the court was satisfied that he fled Poland for the purpose of evading justice.

– James Cross

The High Court refuses to reconsider its judgment in judicial review proceedings. People Over Wind, Environmental Action Alliance Ireland v An Bord Pleanála & ors IEHC 356 (High Court, Haughton J, June 11th, 2015) The High Court has refused to reconsider its judgment in a judicial review of a planning decision in light of the fact that a relevant party was not served with a notice of appeal and has refused to permit the applicant to amend its grounds for seeking judicial review to reflect the failure to serve the relevant party.

– Shane Kiely BL

Costs should only be awarded against the Child and Family Agency in childcare proceedings in certain limited cases. Child & Family Agency v OA IESC 52 (Supreme Court, MacMenamin J, June 23rd, 2015) The Supreme Court, by way of case stated from the Circuit Court, determines a), that costs should only be awarded to parents against the Child and Family Agency in District Court childcare proceedings in certain limited cases, as set out in the judgment, b) that the Circuit Court on appeal should only interfere with such an order from the District Court if there were a departure from the principles outlined and c), remits the instant case to the Circuit Court to apply the principles to the application for costs.

– Mark Tottenham BL

Nama is the public authority with obligations to provide environmental information. The National Asset Management Agency v Commissioner for Environmental Information IESC 51 (Supreme Court, O'Donnell J, June 23rd, 2015) The Supreme Court dismisses an appeal from the High Court and affirms a ruling that the National Asset Management Agency is a "public authority" and obliged to make available certain environmental information concerning properties under its control.

– Mark Tottenham

A bank did not conspire against and coerce an experienced property developer. Roche v Investec Bank Plc Ltd IEHC 367 (High Court, Kennedy J, June 12th, 2015) The High Court dismisses claims for rescission and damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation sought by an experienced property developer against his former bank, concerning alleged agreements regarding proposals for large-scale developments, finding that the claims represent an attempt to secure his release from onerous loan security and other legal obligations.

– Ian Fitzharris BL

The power of a Minister to order a non-national to leave the State indefinitely was not unconstitutional. Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice IESC 53 (Supreme Court, Murray J, June 23rd, 2015) The Supreme Court dismisses an appeal from the High Court, and a), affirms the refusal to declare unconstitutional the power of the Minister for Justice to order a non-national to leave the State and remain out of the State for an indefinite period, on the grounds that the decision to make (or to amend or revoke) such an order was an administrative or executive act and was not an impermissible delegation of legislative power reserved by the Oireachtas and b), refuses to declare that such a power was incompatible with the right to family life in the European Convention on Human Rights on the grounds that the Minister was obliged to exercise his discretion to make such an order in a proportional manner.

– Mark Tottenham

A retrial following an acquittal for burglary would not be in interests of justice. DPP v JC (No 2) IESC 50 (Supreme Court, Clarke J, Denham CJ, MacMenamin J, Murray J, O'Donnell J, June 22nd, 2015) The Supreme Court, in a supplemental judgment, refuses to order the retrial of person acquitted of robbery, notwithstanding that the exclusionary rule concerning key evidence had been overturned in an earlier judgment in the case, on the grounds that the law had been significantly altered by the case and that three years had passed since his acquittal so that it would not be in the interests of justice to order a retrial.

– Mark Tottenham

The full text of these judgments is on courts.ie. They were written and compiled by Stare Decisis Hibernia: StareDecisisHibernia.com