The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Devine [2012] IESC 2 (26 January 2012)

The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Devine [2012] IESC 2 (26 January 2012)

The Supreme Court held that the general rule requiring an undertaking as to damages applies to the State when seeking an interim restraint order under the Criminal Justice Act 1994 (Section 46(6)) Regulations 1996, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The Court found that the State's application in this case was not to enforce the law of the land but to preserve property for potential confiscation, and thus did not fall within the established exceptions. The presumption is that an undertaking is required, and the applicant must provide adequate explanation if seeking to dispense with it.

Citation
[2012] IESC 2
Parties
Appellant/applicant: The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform; Respondent: Bernadette Margaret Rose Devine
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Undertaking as to Damages, Mutual Legal Assistance, Confiscation Orders, Property Rights, Equality Before the Law
Criminal Law International Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Undertaking as to Damages Mutual Legal Assistance Confiscation Orders Property Rights +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform

Appellant/applicant

Bernadette Margaret Rose Devine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State must provide an undertaking as to damages when seeking an interim restraint order under international mutual assistance provisions.
  2. 2 Whether exceptions to the general rule requiring undertakings apply to the State in this context.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the general rule requiring an undertaking as to damages applies to the State when seeking an interim restraint order under the Criminal Justice Act 1994 (Section 46(6)) Regulations 1996, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The Court found that the State's application in this case was not to enforce the law of the land but to preserve property for potential confiscation, and thus did not fall within the established exceptions. The presumption is that an undertaking is required, and the applicant must provide adequate explanation if seeking to dispense with it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order affirmed; requirement for undertaking as to damages upheld.