Rosen v Equality Tribunal & Anor [2019] IESC 22 (09 April 2019)

Rosen v Equality Tribunal & Anor [2019] IESC 22 (09 April 2019)

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court's refusal of leave was justified due to insufficient explanation for delay, the statutory appeal process had been exhausted resulting in a binding order, and the appellant lacked standing to challenge decisions affecting complainants as she was not herself a complainant.

Citation
[2019] IESC 22
Parties
Appellant: Heather Rosen; First Respondents: Director of Equality Investigations and the Equality Tribunal; Second Respondents: Minister for Justice and the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform; Third Respondents: Ireland and the Attorney General; First Notice Parties: Members of certain Traveller families; Second Notice Parties: Clare County Council and the County Manager
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave to Seek Judicial Review
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Standing (locus Standi), Statutory Time Limits, Expenses Orders, Equal Status Acts
Administrative Law Equality Law Judicial Review Standing (locus Standi) Statutory Time Limits Expenses Orders Equal Status Acts

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Rosen

Appellant

Director of Equality Investigations and the Equality Tribunal

First Respondents

Minister for Justice and the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform

Second Respondents

Ireland and the Attorney General

Third Respondents

Members of certain Traveller families

First Notice Parties

Clare County Council and the County Manager

Second Notice Parties

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave to Seek Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing leave to seek judicial review due to delay
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge decisions affecting complainants
  3. 3 Whether the expenses orders against the appellant were lawfully enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court's refusal of leave was justified due to insufficient explanation for delay, the statutory appeal process had been exhausted resulting in a binding order, and the appellant lacked standing to challenge decisions affecting complainants as she was not herself a complainant.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court order refusing leave to seek judicial review affirmed