Caldwell v. Mahon & Ors [2006] IEHC 86 (15 December 2005)

Caldwell v. Mahon & Ors [2006] IEHC 86 (15 December 2005)

Any right to privacy the applicant may have in his business affairs is outweighed by the exigencies of the common good and the public interest in the Tribunal's inquiry. The Tribunal's actions are justified, proportionate, and necessary for the proper conduct of the inquiry. Details of the applicant's business affairs are already in the public domain, and the relief sought is refused.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 86
Parties
Applicant: John Caldwell; Respondents: Judge Alan Mahon, Judge Mary Faherty and Judge Gerard Keys, Members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Constitutional and Convention Privacy Issues
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Privacy, Tribunals of Inquiry, Proportionality, Public Hearings, European Convention on Human Rights
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Right to Privacy Tribunals of Inquiry Proportionality Public Hearings European Convention on Human Rights

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Caldwell

Applicant

Judge Alan Mahon, Judge Mary Faherty and Judge Gerard Keys, Members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Constitutional and Convention Privacy Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's public inquiry into the applicant's business affairs constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate breach of the applicant's right to privacy under Article 40.3 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the right to privacy extends to business affairs conducted through companies
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's actions are justified by the exigencies of the common good

Ratio Decidendi

Any right to privacy the applicant may have in his business affairs is outweighed by the exigencies of the common good and the public interest in the Tribunal's inquiry. The Tribunal's actions are justified, proportionate, and necessary for the proper conduct of the inquiry. Details of the applicant's business affairs are already in the public domain, and the relief sought is refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Relief sought by the applicant is refused
  • Findings under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts stand