Dunne -v- Irish Prison Board [2016] IEHC 203 (16 March 2016)

Applications for certiorari, prohibition, stay, and injunction are moot due to applicants' acceptance of promotion. Only the declaration regarding breach of natural and constitutional justice remains justiciable.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2016] IEHC 203
Parties: Applicant: Aisling Dunne; Applicant: Aoife Quinlivan; Respondent: Irish Prison Service; Notice Party: Commissioner for Public Service Appointments
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Judgment Date: 16 March 2016
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Motion to Strike Out as Moot
Outcome: Applications for certiorari, prohibition, stay, and injunction dismissed as moot; only declaration remains justiciable.
Legal Topics: Mootness, Judicial Review, Promotion Process, Natural Justice, Ultra Vires

Administrative Law Employment Law Mootness Judicial Review Promotion Process Natural Justice Ultra Vires

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Aisling Dunne

Applicant

Aoife Quinlivan

Applicant

Irish Prison Service

Respondent

Commissioner for Public Service Appointments

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Motion to Strike Out as Moot

Legal Issues

1 Whether the proceedings are moot due to applicants' acceptance of promotion
2 Whether the respondent acted ultra vires and breached natural and constitutional justice in the selection process

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Applications for certiorari, prohibition, stay, and injunction dismissed as moot; only declaration remains justiciable.

Orders

Applications for certiorari, prohibition, stay, and injunction dismissed as moot.
Applicants may apply to amend motions to seek damages.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.