Coonan v. A.G. [2001] IESC 48; [2002] 1 ILRM 295 (29 May 2001)

Coonan v. A.G. [2001] IESC 48; [2002] 1 ILRM 295 (29 May 2001)

The Attorney General's discretion under the contract was not contractually fettered by established practice; legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel do not apply absent clear representation and detrimental reliance. The plaintiff was not entitled to damages for breach of contract or otherwise.

Citation
[2002] 1 ILRM 295
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Coonan; Defendants: The Attorney General and Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings (contractual Dispute, Damages Claim) / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed (Murphy J.), appeal dismissed (Geoghegan J.), split decision.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Discretion in Employment Contracts, Legitimate Expectation, Promissory Estoppel, Policy Change in Public Appointments
Contract Law Employment Law Administrative Law Breach of Contract Discretion in Employment Contracts Legitimate Expectation Promissory Estoppel Policy Change in Public Appointments

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Coonan

Plaintiff

The Attorney General and Ireland

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings (contractual Dispute, Damages Claim) / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Attorney General breached contract by refusing extension of State Solicitor's appointment
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney General's discretion was fettered by established practice
  3. 3 Whether legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel applies to the plaintiff's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Attorney General's discretion under the contract was not contractually fettered by established practice; legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel do not apply absent clear representation and detrimental reliance. The plaintiff was not entitled to damages for breach of contract or otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (Murphy J.), appeal dismissed (Geoghegan J.), split decision.

Orders

  • No damages awarded to plaintiff (Murphy J.), damages of £100,000 upheld (Geoghegan J.)