Barrett v. Linnane [2002] IEHC 20 (20th March, 2002)

Barrett v. Linnane [2002] IEHC 20 (20th March, 2002)

The High Court found that the Circuit Court Judge erred in making and perfecting orders purporting to be by consent when there was no true agreement between the parties, and in refusing to allow Mr Barrett to present evidence or to state a case to the Supreme Court. The orders improperly affected the property rights of non-parties (other traders) and were not an accurate reflection of what was agreed in court. The right of way for the Dowlings exists for pedestrian access and fire escape, but the electrification and control of the gates by the Dowlings without the freeholder's consent was not lawful. The orders of the Circuit Court are set aside.

Citation
[2002] IEHC 20
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff/defendant (various Proceedings): Michael J Barrett; Respondent/defendant/plaintiff (various Proceedings): Thomas Dowling; Respondent/defendant/plaintiff (various Proceedings): Jennifer Dowling
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Property Dispute / Injunction / High Court Judgment Following Circuit Court Orders and Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Orders of the Circuit Court (12th and 21st July 2000) set aside; relief by way of certiorari granted; matter remitted for proper determination if necessary.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Easements, Fire Safety Compliance, Consent Orders, Injunctions, Landlord and Tenant, Circuit Court Procedure
Property Law Equity Judicial Review Right of Way Easements Fire Safety Compliance Consent Orders Injunctions +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael J Barrett

Applicant/plaintiff/defendant (various Proceedings)

Thomas Dowling

Respondent/defendant/plaintiff (various Proceedings)

Jennifer Dowling

Respondent/defendant/plaintiff (various Proceedings)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Property Dispute / Injunction / High Court Judgment Following Circuit Court Orders and Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Circuit Court Judge erred in making and perfecting consent orders affecting property rights without true consent of all parties
  2. 2 Whether the right of way over the arcade exists and its extent
  3. 3 Whether the electrification and control of gates by the Dowlings was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the Circuit Court Judge erred in making and perfecting orders purporting to be by consent when there was no true agreement between the parties, and in refusing to allow Mr Barrett to present evidence or to state a case to the Supreme Court. The orders improperly affected the property rights of non-parties (other traders) and were not an accurate reflection of what was agreed in court. The right of way for the Dowlings exists for pedestrian access and fire escape, but the electrification and control of the gates by the Dowlings without the freeholder's consent was not lawful. The orders of the Circuit Court are set aside.

Court Disposition

Orders of the Circuit Court (12th and 21st July 2000) set aside; relief by way of certiorari granted; matter remitted for proper determination if necessary.

Orders

  • Certiorari granted quashing the Circuit Court orders of 12th and 21st July 2000.
  • Costs to be determined as appropriate.