Riordan v. Ireland [2002] IESC 70 (15 October 2002)

Riordan v. Ireland [2002] IESC 70 (15 October 2002)

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge was correct to refuse the mandatory interlocutory injunction, as it would require a public official to act in direct breach of express legislative provisions, and such relief should not be granted unless and until those provisions are declared unconstitutional by a court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] IESC 70
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Denis Riordan; Respondent: Government of Ireland; Respondent: Minister for the Environment and Local Government; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mandatory Injunctions, Constitutionality of Electoral Legislation, Discretion in Granting Interlocutory Relief
Constitutional Law Election Law Mandatory Injunctions Constitutionality of Electoral Legislation Discretion in Granting Interlocutory Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denis Riordan

Applicant/appellant

Government of Ireland

Respondent

Minister for the Environment and Local Government

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mandatory interlocutory injunction should be granted to require acceptance of a nomination paper not compliant with statutory requirements
  2. 2 Whether the urgency of the enactment of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2002 is relevant to the relief sought
  3. 3 Whether courts may grant injunctive relief where legislation is alleged to be unconstitutional

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge was correct to refuse the mandatory interlocutory injunction, as it would require a public official to act in direct breach of express legislative provisions, and such relief should not be granted unless and until those provisions are declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Kearns J. affirmed
  • Injunctive relief refused