Bates & anor v Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food & Ors [2019] IESC 35 (23 May 2019)

Bates & anor v Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food & Ors [2019] IESC 35 (23 May 2019)

The Supreme Court held that there was no material error in its prior judgment's narrative of events. The evidence and the High Court's findings supported the conclusion that the Minister's officials gave proximate and specific negligent advice to the plaintiffs, upon which they relied, leading to their loss. The application to review the judgment did not meet the exceptional threshold required to reopen a final Supreme Court decision. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] IESC 35
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Eugene Bates; Plaintiff/respondent: Brendan Moore; Defendant/appellant: Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food; Defendant/appellant: Ireland; Defendant/appellant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Application to Review Prior Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application to review judgment refused
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Proximity, Government Liability, Damages, Judicial Review, Finality of Judgments
Tort Law Administrative Law Public Law Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Proximity Government Liability Damages +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Bates

Plaintiff/respondent

Brendan Moore

Plaintiff/respondent

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food

Defendant/appellant

Ireland

Defendant/appellant

Attorney General

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Application to Review Prior Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court may review its own final judgment for alleged error of fact or law
  2. 2 Whether the Minister's officials owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs in providing advice
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient proximity for liability in negligent misstatement by government officials

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that there was no material error in its prior judgment's narrative of events. The evidence and the High Court's findings supported the conclusion that the Minister's officials gave proximate and specific negligent advice to the plaintiffs, upon which they relied, leading to their loss. The application to review the judgment did not meet the exceptional threshold required to reopen a final Supreme Court decision. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application to review judgment refused

Orders

  • Damages of €49,600 to plaintiffs upheld
  • Minister to pay respondents' costs of proceedings, except for one hearing day