Ireland Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Ireland Case Law

  • 18 May 2026

    Filbeck Limited v Kirwan (Approved) [2026] IEHC 306 (18 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IEHC 306

    The defendants' motions are dismissed as they are devoid of merit, constitute an abuse of process, and seek to re-litigate matters already finally determined. The plaintiff's claim meets the statutory requirements for a claim under s.74 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. The defendants have lost the right to challenge the underlying judgment or raise procedural objections, and no basis exists for the procedural reliefs sought.

    • Fraudulent conveyance
    • Abuse of process
    • Enforcement of judgment
    • Vexatious litigation
    • Procedural applications

  • 15 May 2026

    International Investments ICAV v Blanche Retail Nominee Ltd (Approved) [2026] IEHC 311 (15 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IEHC 311

    Although the plaintiff established a strong case that its right to use the car park is an easement and that the defendant's works may breach the lease, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the temporary or permanent loss of 26 car park spaces. The detriment is remediable, and the plaintiff's evidence of loss was speculative and unsupported. The balance of convenience, particularly the adequacy of damages, does not favour granting interlocutory injunctive relief.

    • Easements
    • Interlocutory injunctions
    • Adequacy of damages
    • Balance of convenience
    • Lease interpretation

  • 15 May 2026

    Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group & Ors v An Coimisiun Pleanala & Ors (No. 3) [2026] IEHC 301 (15 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IEHC 301

    The proposed appeal questions do not properly arise from the judgment, are essentially factual or concern the application of law to facts, and do not raise any point of law of exceptional public importance. The statutory criteria for leave to appeal are not met. There is no public interest in granting leave, and no EU law point of substance or doubt is raised.

    • Judicial review of planning decisions
    • Leave to appeal criteria
    • Material alteration under planning and development act 2000
    • Public participation in planning
    • Finality in planning litigation

  • 15 May 2026

    Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group and Ors v An Coimisiun Pleanala and Ors [No. 3] (Approved) [2026] IEHC 300 (15 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IEHC 300

    None of the applicants' proposed points for leave to appeal properly arise from the pleadings or the judgment, are points of law rather than fact, or are of exceptional public importance. The points are either moot, academic, fact-specific, or attempts to reframe the case post-dismissal. The law on all relevant issues is settled and no systemic uncertainty or public interest justifies leave to appeal. Application for leave to appeal refused.

    • Judicial review
    • Leave to appeal
    • Environmental impact assessment
    • Planning permission
    • Standing
    • Reasons in administrative decisions

  • 15 May 2026

    Coleman v Pyriat Ltd and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 313 (15 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IEHC 313

    The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving a good arguable case in the Luxembourg proceedings, as the affidavit evidence did not sufficiently explain the Luxembourg law basis for the claim or justify the optimism of success. The relief sought in Luxembourg was primarily against Colaco, not the defendant, and the damages claimed from the defendant were modest. There was insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendant to frustrate enforcement. The balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction, particularly given the plaintiff's ability…

    • Mareva injunction
    • Article 35 brussels i recast
    • Jurisdiction
    • Recognition and enforcement of judgments
    • Provisional measures
    • Fraudulent conveyance

  • 15 May 2026

    Timmons v The Wellcome Foundation Limited (Approved) [2026] IEHC 304 (15 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IEHC 304

    The delay in serving the summons was due to oversight or error by the Plaintiff's solicitor, not special circumstances. The procedural issues were ordinary and resolved quickly. No unusual or extraordinary circumstances justified renewal. The existence of a second set of proceedings negated any claim of prejudice. The renewal of the summons must be set aside.

    • Renewal of summons
    • Special circumstances
    • Service of process
    • Delay in litigation
    • Prejudice and hardship

  • 13 May 2026

    Nowak v Intesa Sanpaolo Vita S.P.A (Approved) [2026] IEHC 295 (13 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IEHC 295

    The High Court refused to amend the perfected orders because the amendments sought were not clerical corrections or accidental slips but substantive changes contrary to the principal judgment's intent. The plaintiff had failed to object or make submissions when invited, had acquiesced in the orders, and had delayed unreasonably. There was no exceptional circumstance justifying the exercise of any inherent jurisdiction to revisit the orders. The motions for judgment in default were moot after delivery of the defence, and the proper route for measuring expenses was through the Legal Costs Adjud…

    • Amendment of perfected orders
    • Slip rule
    • Case management
    • Costs of litigant in person
    • Wrongful dismissal
    • Delay in prosecution

  • 12 May 2026

    McGuinness v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Approved) [2026] IEHC 290 (12 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IEHC 290

    An orally pronounced conviction in a Circuit Court appeal from the District Court, not followed by a formal order including sentence, does not constitute a legally operative conviction. The process remains inchoate and may be reheard de novo before a different judge. The applicant is not entitled to plead autrefois convict, and the procedural delays and errors, while regrettable, do not reach the threshold of fundamental unfairness or denial of justice to justify prohibition of a rehearing or quashing of the District Court conviction.

    • Double jeopardy (autrefois convict)
    • Summary conviction
    • Fair procedures
    • Delay in prosecution
    • Status of oral conviction
    • Remittal and prohibition

  • 12 May 2026

    Mateo v The Minister for Justice (Approved) [2026] IECA 82 (12 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IECA 82

    The Minister lawfully applied the Scheme's criteria, was entitled to exclude evidence prior to 2018, required documentary proof as specified, and did not commit a fundamental error of fact. The appellant failed to provide acceptable evidence of continuous residency for the relevant period.

    • Regularisation scheme
    • Judicial review
    • Documentary evidence
    • Residency requirements

  • 11 May 2026

    KBC Bank NV v Smith & Ors (Approved) [2026] IECA 80 (11 May 2026)

    Citation
    [2026] IECA 80

    A mortgagor lawfully evicted pursuant to a final possession order cannot re-enter the property; any challenge to the possession order constitutes an impermissible collateral attack. Substitution of plaintiff was valid by operation of law. Allegations of fraud were speculative, unparticularised, and did not meet the threshold for reopening the final order.

    • Mortgage possession
    • Collateral attack
    • Fraud allegations
    • Substitution of parties
    • Abuse of process