Coughlan v. Broadcasting Complaints Commission [1998] IEHC 62; [2000] 3 IR 1 (24th April, 1998)

Coughlan v. Broadcasting Complaints Commission [1998] IEHC 62; [2000] 3 IR 1 (24th April, 1998)

R.T.E.'s allocation of uncontested broadcasting time during the 1995 Divorce Referendum was significantly unequal, favouring the YES side, and thus constituted unconstitutional unfairness. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission misapplied the law by accepting R.T.E.'s submissions and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction. The applicant is entitled to a declaration of constitutional unfairness and an order quashing the Commission's adjudication.

Citation
[1998] IEHC 62
Parties
Applicant: Anthony Coughlan; Respondent: Broadcasting Complaints Commission; Notice Party: Radio Telefis Eireann (R.T.E.)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Referendum Broadcasting, Equality Before the Law, Fair Procedures, Statutory Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Administrative Bodies
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Media Law Referendum Broadcasting Equality Before the Law Fair Procedures Statutory Interpretation Jurisdiction of Administrative Bodies

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Coughlan

Applicant

Broadcasting Complaints Commission

Respondent

Radio Telefis Eireann (R.T.E.)

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether R.T.E.'s allocation of uncontested broadcasting time during the 1995 Divorce Referendum was constitutionally unfair and unequal
  2. 2 Whether the Broadcasting Complaints Commission misapplied the law and exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the applicant's complaint

Ratio Decidendi

R.T.E.'s allocation of uncontested broadcasting time during the 1995 Divorce Referendum was significantly unequal, favouring the YES side, and thus constituted unconstitutional unfairness. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission misapplied the law by accepting R.T.E.'s submissions and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction. The applicant is entitled to a declaration of constitutional unfairness and an order quashing the Commission's adjudication.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the allocation of uncontested broadcasting time to each side in the 1995 Divorce Referendum was significantly unequal and constitutionally unfair
  • Order of Certiorari quashing the adjudication of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission