Stack v The Attorney General & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 561 (23 October 2025)

Stack v The Attorney General & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 561 (23 October 2025)

The applicant failed to establish an arguable case that the presidential nomination process breached constitutional or statutory requirements. The alleged party whip instructions and council procedures are political decisions, non-justiciable by the courts. No evidence was provided of adverse impact or exclusion, nor any legal basis for the relief sought. The process operated precisely as envisaged by the Constitution and legislation.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 561
Parties
Applicant: Cora M. Stack; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Minister for Housing Local Government and Heritage; Respondent: The Presidential Returning Officer; Respondent: The Tánaiste
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Seek Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to seek judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Presidential Nomination Process, Party Whip, Political Decisions, Justiciability, Protected Disclosures, Local Government Powers
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Election Law Presidential Nomination Process Party Whip Political Decisions Justiciability Protected Disclosures +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 8 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cora M. Stack

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Minister for Housing Local Government and Heritage

Respondent

The Presidential Returning Officer

Respondent

The Tánaiste

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Seek Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2025 presidential nomination process breached constitutional and statutory requirements
  2. 2 Whether party 'whip' instructions unlawfully interfered with council nominations
  3. 3 Whether council-imposed time limits and simultaneous meetings denied fair opportunity

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish an arguable case that the presidential nomination process breached constitutional or statutory requirements. The alleged party whip instructions and council procedures are political decisions, non-justiciable by the courts. No evidence was provided of adverse impact or exclusion, nor any legal basis for the relief sought. The process operated precisely as envisaged by the Constitution and legislation.

Court Disposition

Leave to seek judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order for costs specified