Dunne v. Dunlaoghaire Rathdown County Council [2003] IESC 15 (24 February 2003)

Dunne v. Dunlaoghaire Rathdown County Council [2003] IESC 15 (24 February 2003)

On the present evidence, the plaintiffs have established an arguable case that the site is a national monument and that the proposed works require consent under s.14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930 as amended. There is no evidence of laches by the plaintiffs. The balance of convenience does not decisively favour the defendant, as the claimed financial losses are not substantiated in relation to the specific relief sought. Damages are not an adequate remedy for the public right asserted. Interlocutory relief is warranted to preserve the status quo pending trial, restraining the defendant from interfering with the monument without a valid s.14 consent.

Citation
[2003] IESC 15
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Dominic Dunne; Plaintiff/appellant: Gordon Lucas; Defendant/respondent: Dunlaoghaire-Rathdown County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Standing in Public Law, National Monuments Act, Balance of Convenience, Public Rights Enforcement
Administrative Law Heritage Law Planning Law Interlocutory Injunctions Standing in Public Law National Monuments Act Balance of Convenience Public Rights Enforcement

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominic Dunne

Plaintiff/appellant

Gordon Lucas

Plaintiff/appellant

Dunlaoghaire-Rathdown County Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have standing to seek an injunction to prevent works on a national monument under s.14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the works proposed by the defendant require consent under s.14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930 as amended
  3. 3 Whether delay (laches) or balance of convenience precludes the grant of interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

On the present evidence, the plaintiffs have established an arguable case that the site is a national monument and that the proposed works require consent under s.14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930 as amended. There is no evidence of laches by the plaintiffs. The balance of convenience does not decisively favour the defendant, as the claimed financial losses are not substantiated in relation to the specific relief sought. Damages are not an adequate remedy for the public right asserted. Interlocutory relief is warranted to preserve the status quo pending trial, restraining the defendant from interfering with the monument without a valid s.14 consent.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant restrained until further order from demolishing, removing, disfiguring, defacing, altering, injuring, or interfering with the national monument and/or archaeological remains at Carrickmines Castle without a valid consent under s.14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930 as amended.
  • Liberty to apply to the High Court.