Bemis -v- Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands & anor [2007] IESC 10 (27 March 2007)

Bemis -v- Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands & anor [2007] IESC 10 (27 March 2007)

The Minister's refusal to consider the respondent's application for a licence under s.3(5) of the 1987 Act on the basis of form alteration and an inflexible policy against intrusive works was an error of law, ultra vires, and irrational. The Minister was required to consider the application on its merits and could...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] IESC 10
Parties
Respondent/respondent: F. Gregg Bemis; Respondents/appellants: The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Ministerial Decision, Licensing Under National Monuments Acts, Interpretation of Statutory Powers, Ultra Vires, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Heritage Law Property Law Judicial Review of Ministerial Decision Licensing Under National Monuments Acts Interpretation of Statutory Powers Ultra Vires Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. Gregg Bemis

Respondent/respondent

The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents/appellants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister lawfully refused the respondent's application for a licence under s.3(5) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the Minister adopted an inflexible policy contrary to statute
  3. 3 Whether works proposed required an excavation licence under s.26 of the National Monuments Act 1930

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's refusal to consider the respondent's application for a licence under s.3(5) of the 1987 Act on the basis of form alteration and an inflexible policy against intrusive works was an error of law, ultra vires, and irrational. The Minister was required to consider the application on its merits and could not lawfully reject it in limine for procedural reasons not grounded in statute. The High Court was correct to declare the Minister's decision void and of no effect.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Minister's refusal of 22 May 2001 was ultra vires, void and of no effect
  • No other relief granted