Dublin City Council v Thomas McFeely, Laurence O'Mahony and Coalport Building Company Ltd [2012] IESC 45 (31 July 2012)

Dublin City Council v Thomas McFeely, Laurence O'Mahony and Coalport Building Company Ltd [2012] IESC 45 (31 July 2012)

The appellant could not be held in contempt for breach of the 17 October 2011 order or undertaking, as he was removed from the site by court order on 4 November 2011 before the completion deadline, making compliance impossible. There was no factual basis for a contempt finding or for breach of weekly targets, as such targets were not agreed or ordered.

Citation
[2012] IESC 45
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Dublin City Council; Respondent/appellant: Thomas McFeely; Respondent/appellant: Laurence O'Mahony; Respondent/appellant: Coalport Building Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court for Breach of Undertaking, Interpretation of Court Orders, Procedural Fairness in Contempt Proceedings, Jurisdiction Under Fire Services Act 1981 S.23
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Local Government Law Fire Safety Law Contempt of Court for Breach of Undertaking Interpretation of Court Orders Procedural Fairness in Contempt Proceedings Jurisdiction Under Fire Services Act 1981 S.23

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dublin City Council

Applicant/respondent

Thomas McFeely

Respondent/appellant

Laurence O'Mahony

Respondent/appellant

Coalport Building Company Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was in breach of the High Court order and undertaking of 17 October 2011
  2. 2 Whether fair procedures were afforded in the High Court contempt proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant could not be held in contempt for breach of the 17 October 2011 order or undertaking, as he was removed from the site by court order on 4 November 2011 before the completion deadline, making compliance impossible. There was no factual basis for a contempt finding or for breach of weekly targets, as such targets were not agreed or ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • Finding of contempt set aside
  • Order of committal and fine against appellant set aside