Kennedy & Ors -v- Minister for Agriculture & Ors [2011] IEHC 187 (15 April 2011)

Kennedy & Ors -v- Minister for Agriculture & Ors [2011] IEHC 187 (15 April 2011)

The plaintiffs' pleadings disclose a cause of action in Irish law based on legitimate expectation, and the defendants have not demonstrated a clear case that the claim must fail at this stage. The existence of EU competence and the Minister's role do not, on the pleadings, bar the plaintiffs from arguing that their loss of compensation is attributable to the State's actions. The motion to dismiss is refused.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 187
Parties
Plaintiffs: Thomas Kennedy, Michael Murphy, Michael Hennessy, O’Mathuna (Baid) Teoranta, Vincent Browne, John O’Donnell, Paul Flannery, John Graham, Kieran O’Driscoll, Donal Healy, Neil Minihane, Gerard Minihane and Peter Carlton; Defendants: The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, The Minister for Finance, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / High Court Motion to Dismiss/strike Out Claim
Outcome
Defendants' application to dismiss/strike out the claim is refused.
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, State Liability, Non Justiciability, EU Common Fisheries Policy, Discrimination Under EU Law
Administrative Law EU Law Constitutional Law Legitimate Expectation State Liability Non Justiciability EU Common Fisheries Policy Discrimination Under EU Law

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Kennedy, Michael Murphy, Michael Hennessy, O’Mathuna (Baid) Teoranta, Vincent Browne, John O’Donnell, Paul Flannery, John Graham, Kieran O’Driscoll, Donal Healy, Neil Minihane, Gerard Minihane and Peter Carlton

Plaintiffs

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, The Minister for Finance, Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / High Court Motion to Dismiss/strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action in Irish law based on legitimate expectation for compensation following the EU drift-net ban for tuna fishing
  2. 2 Whether the claim is justiciable before an Irish court given the exclusive competence of the EU in fisheries policy
  3. 3 Whether the actions of the Irish Minister in opting out of compensation measures can ground liability under Irish or EU law

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' pleadings disclose a cause of action in Irish law based on legitimate expectation, and the defendants have not demonstrated a clear case that the claim must fail at this stage. The existence of EU competence and the Minister's role do not, on the pleadings, bar the plaintiffs from arguing that their loss of compensation is attributable to the State's actions. The motion to dismiss is refused.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to dismiss/strike out the claim is refused.

Orders

  • Order dismissing the defendants’ application to strike out the proceedings.