Rooney -v- The Minister for Agriculture & ors [2016] IESC 1 (28 January 2016)

Rooney -v- The Minister for Agriculture & ors [2016] IESC 1 (28 January 2016)

The Supreme Court held that the appeals must be dismissed as the issues had already been determined in prior proceedings, the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment in default of defence as the defence had been delivered and the substantive issues resolved, and the motion to amend the statement of claim was properly refused given the extreme delay, prior finality, and the absence of any new or justiciable issue. The non-statutory compensation scheme was not unconstitutional or ultra vires, and the plaintiff's repeated attempts to relitigate were an abuse of process.

Citation
[2016] IESC 1
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: John Rooney; Defendant/respondent: The Minister for Agriculture and Food; Defendant/respondent: The Minister for Finance; Defendant/respondent: The Taoiseach; Defendant/respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General; Defendant/respondent: Donal McDaid; Defendant/respondent: Patrick Delaney; Defendant/respondent: The Irish Farmers’ Association; Defendant/respondent: ERAD, The Management Board for Disease Eradication; Defendant/respondent: Alan Gillis; Defendant/respondent: Denis Coffey; Defendant/respondent: Terence O’Connor; Defendant/respondent: Denis G. Hickey; Defendant/respondent: James Noonan; Defendant/respondent: John Malone; Defendant/respondent: The Minister for the Public Service; Defendant/respondent: The Ombudsman
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders Regarding Motion for Judgment in Default of Defence and Motion to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Compensation for Animal Disease Control, Statutory Vs Non Statutory Schemes, Delay in Litigation, Res Judicata, Vexatious Litigation, EU Law Transposition, Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial Within Reasonable Time)
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Agricultural Law Civil Procedure Compensation for Animal Disease Control Statutory Vs Non Statutory Schemes Delay in Litigation Res Judicata +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Rooney

Plaintiff/appellant

The Minister for Agriculture and Food

Defendant/respondent

The Minister for Finance

Defendant/respondent

The Taoiseach

Defendant/respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

Donal McDaid

Defendant/respondent

Patrick Delaney

Defendant/respondent

The Irish Farmers’ Association

Defendant/respondent

ERAD, The Management Board for Disease Eradication

Defendant/respondent

Alan Gillis

Defendant/respondent

Denis Coffey

Defendant/respondent

Terence O’Connor

Defendant/respondent

Denis G. Hickey

Defendant/respondent

James Noonan

Defendant/respondent

John Malone

Defendant/respondent

The Minister for the Public Service

Defendant/respondent

The Ombudsman

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders Regarding Motion for Judgment in Default of Defence and Motion to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to judgment in default of defence
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the statement of claim decades after proceedings commenced
  3. 3 Whether the non-statutory compensation scheme for bovine tuberculosis was unconstitutional or contrary to EU law

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appeals must be dismissed as the issues had already been determined in prior proceedings, the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment in default of defence as the defence had been delivered and the substantive issues resolved, and the motion to amend the statement of claim was properly refused given the extreme delay, prior finality, and the absence of any new or justiciable issue. The non-statutory compensation scheme was not unconstitutional or ultra vires, and the plaintiff's repeated attempts to relitigate were an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals against High Court orders dismissed
  • No further amendment of statement of claim permitted