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

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

Any right to privacy in business affairs exists only at the outer reaches of constitutional protection and is outweighed by the exigencies of the common good in the context of a public tribunal inquiry. The Tribunal's public hearings are justified, proportionate, and necessary for urgent matters of public...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 86
Parties
Applicant: John Caldwell; Respondent: Judge Alan Mahon; Respondent: Judge Mary Faherty; Respondent: Judge Gerard Keys
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application refused; judgment for respondents.
Legal Topics
Right to Privacy, Tribunal of Inquiry, Public Hearings, European Convention on Human Rights
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Right to Privacy Tribunal of Inquiry Public Hearings European Convention on Human Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Caldwell

Applicant

Judge Alan Mahon

Respondent

Judge Mary Faherty

Respondent

Judge Gerard Keys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's public inquiry breaches the applicant's constitutional and convention right to privacy
  2. 2 Whether business affairs conducted through companies attract constitutional privacy protection
  3. 3 Applicability of Article 8 ECHR to business affairs

Ratio Decidendi

Any right to privacy in business affairs exists only at the outer reaches of constitutional protection and is outweighed by the exigencies of the common good in the context of a public tribunal inquiry. The Tribunal's public hearings are justified, proportionate, and necessary for urgent matters of public importance, and the applicant's business affairs have already entered the public domain.

Court Disposition

Application refused; judgment for respondents.

Orders

  • No relief granted to applicant.
  • Findings under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts stand.