B & Ors v Wexford County Council & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 205 (19 March 2021)

B & Ors v Wexford County Council & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 205 (19 March 2021)

A modular trial would not save time or costs and would likely prejudice the applicants by exposing them to two trials, increasing delay and expense, and potentially requiring the court to revisit issues. The interpretation and constitutionality of the statutory provisions are interlinked, and the presence of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 205
Parties
Applicant: AB; Applicant: TB; Applicant: JB (A MINOR SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, AB); Applicant: MB (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, AB); Respondent: Wexford County Council; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General; Notice Party: The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application for Modular Trial
Outcome
Application for modular trial refused
Legal Topics
Modular Trial Procedure, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions, Constitutionality of Legislation, Anti Social Behaviour and Housing Eligibility, Discrimination, Proportionality, Access to Justice
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Housing Law Human Rights Law Modular Trial Procedure Interpretation of Statutory Provisions Constitutionality of Legislation Anti Social Behaviour and Housing Eligibility +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

TB

Applicant

JB (A MINOR SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, AB)

Applicant

MB (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, AB)

Applicant

Wexford County Council

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application for Modular Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be conducted in a modular fashion, separating factual and constitutional issues
  2. 2 Whether the interpretation and constitutionality of s.14(1)(a) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 and s.35 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 require the presence of the State respondents throughout the trial
  3. 3 Whether a modular trial would save time or costs and avoid prejudice to the parties

Ratio Decidendi

A modular trial would not save time or costs and would likely prejudice the applicants by exposing them to two trials, increasing delay and expense, and potentially requiring the court to revisit issues. The interpretation and constitutionality of the statutory provisions are interlinked, and the presence of the State respondents is necessary for a fair and efficient determination. The default position of a unitary trial should be maintained in this case.

Court Disposition

Application for modular trial refused

Orders

  • Application for modular trial refused
  • Costs of the motion to be borne by the State respondents, stayed pending trial