Caldwell v Mahon Tribunal & ors [2011] IESC 21 (28 July 2011)

Caldwell v Mahon Tribunal & ors [2011] IESC 21 (28 July 2011)

The Tribunal breached the principles of natural and constitutional justice by refusing to hear any submissions from the appellant regarding the exercise of its discretion to proceed with public hearings, where such a decision could adversely affect the appellant's interests. The Tribunal's broad discretion did not exempt it from the obligation to apply the audi alteram partem rule. The refusal was not justified by the reasons advanced, and the appellant was entitled to be heard. The High Court erred in finding otherwise.

Citation
[2011] IESC 21
Parties
Applicant/appellant: John Caldwell; Respondents/respondents: Judge Alan Mahon, Judge Mary Faherty and Judge Gerald Keys, Members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Fair Procedures, Tribunals of Inquiry, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Right to Be Heard, Discretion of Public Bodies
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Natural Justice Fair Procedures Tribunals of Inquiry Judicial Review Ultra Vires Right to Be Heard +1 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Caldwell

Applicant/appellant

Judge Alan Mahon, Judge Mary Faherty and Judge Gerald Keys, Members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments

Respondents/respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal breached natural and constitutional justice by refusing to hear submissions from the appellant regarding the exercise of its discretion to proceed with public hearings.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal acted ultra vires or without jurisdiction in deciding to hold public hearings into certain phases of its inquiry.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's claim was barred by delay under the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal breached the principles of natural and constitutional justice by refusing to hear any submissions from the appellant regarding the exercise of its discretion to proceed with public hearings, where such a decision could adversely affect the appellant's interests. The Tribunal's broad discretion did not exempt it from the obligation to apply the audi alteram partem rule. The refusal was not justified by the reasons advanced, and the appellant was entitled to be heard. The High Court erred in finding otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • Order of the High Court refusing reliefs and awarding costs against the appellant is set aside.