Gorman v. Minister for the Environment [2000] IEHC 207 (7th December, 2000)

Applicants have met the low threshold of establishing an arguable case for judicial review as set out in G. v DPP, and leave to apply for judicial review is granted.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2000] IEHC 207
Parties: Applicant: Applicants; Respondent: Respondents
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review
Outcome: Leave to apply for judicial review granted
Legal Topics: Judicial Review, Standard of Proof, Certiorari, Statutory Instruments, Separation of Powers

Administrative Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Standard of Proof Certiorari Statutory Instruments Separation of Powers

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2

Parties

Applicants

Applicant

Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review

Legal Issues

1 Whether applicants have met the threshold for leave to apply for judicial review
2 Whether Statutory Instrument 367/2000 improperly interferes with pending Supreme Court proceedings
3 Whether the Statutory Instrument unlawfully interferes with property rights, is unreasonable/irrational, or breaches natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants have met the low threshold of establishing an arguable case for judicial review as set out in G. v DPP, and leave to apply for judicial review is granted.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review granted

Orders

Leave granted to apply for reliefs set forth in paragraph D of the statement grounding the application upon the grounds set forth at paragraph B
Court to hear counsel on time required to exchange documents and prepare for trial

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.