Riordan v. An Taoiseach (No.2) [1998] IEHC 77; [1999] 4 IR 343 (20th May, 1998)

Riordan v. An Taoiseach (No.2) [1998] IEHC 77; [1999] 4 IR 343 (20th May, 1998)

The Court has no jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a Bill prior to enactment; the procedures under Article 46 were complied with; and the application was delayed without explanation, warranting dismissal on both merits and delay.

Citation
[1998] IEHC 77
Parties
Applicant: Denis Riordan; Respondents: The Attorney General and Others
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Referendum, Amendment of Constitution, Judicial Review, Delay in Proceedings
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Referendum Amendment of Constitution Judicial Review Delay in Proceedings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denis Riordan

Applicant

The Attorney General and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave and Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the procedure for amending the Constitution via referendum complies with Article 46
  2. 2 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a Bill prior to enactment
  3. 3 Whether delay in instituting proceedings bars relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has no jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a Bill prior to enactment; the procedures under Article 46 were complied with; and the application was delayed without explanation, warranting dismissal on both merits and delay.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Reliefs sought are refused