Goold v. Collins & Ors [2004] IESC 38 (12 July 2004)

Goold v. Collins & Ors [2004] IESC 38 (12 July 2004)

The proceedings were moot because the Protection Order had been discharged by agreement and the criminal charges dismissed; there was no live controversy or reasonable expectation of recurrence. The Supreme Court should not decide constitutional issues in moot cases absent exceptional circumstances. The making of an ex parte Protection Order did not, in law, damage the applicant's reputation.

Citation
[2004] IESC 38
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Eileen Goold; Respondent/appellant: Mary Collins, a Judge of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court; Respondent/appellant: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent/appellant: Ireland; Respondent/appellant: The Attorney General; Respondent/appellant: John Joseph (Jackie) Gallagher
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Regarding Mootness in Judicial Review Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; proceedings stayed generally.
Legal Topics
Mootness, Protection Orders, Domestic Violence, Constitutionality of Statutes, Judicial Discretion, Ex Parte Orders
Constitutional Law Family Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Mootness Protection Orders Domestic Violence Constitutionality of Statutes +2 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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eileen Goold

Applicant/respondent

Mary Collins, a Judge of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court

Respondent/appellant

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/appellant

Ireland

Respondent/appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent/appellant

John Joseph (Jackie) Gallagher

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Regarding Mootness in Judicial Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claims for relief regarding the Protection Order and the constitutionality of sections of the Domestic Violence Act 1996 were moot
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court should exercise discretion to hear a moot case involving constitutional issues
  3. 3 Whether the making of a Protection Order caused legally cognisable reputational damage

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were moot because the Protection Order had been discharged by agreement and the criminal charges dismissed; there was no live controversy or reasonable expectation of recurrence. The Supreme Court should not decide constitutional issues in moot cases absent exceptional circumstances. The making of an ex parte Protection Order did not, in law, damage the applicant's reputation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; proceedings stayed generally.

Orders

  • Stay of applicant/respondent's proceedings for relief at paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Notice of Motion
  • General stay of proceedings, as applicant did not appeal the High Court's stay of the balance