Conway -v- Ireland & Ors [2009] IEHC 472 (21 October 2009)

Conway -v- Ireland & Ors [2009] IEHC 472 (21 October 2009)

The plaintiff's claims are unsustainable and bound to fail as there is no legal obligation on the defendants to provide the reliefs sought, the claims are not justiciable, and the proper procedure for challenging the planning decision was not followed. The court has no jurisdiction to compel the State to ratify an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 472
Parties
Plaintiff: John Conway; Defendant: Ireland; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: The National Roads Authority
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings (order 19, Rule 28 Applications) / High Court Judgment on Applications to Strike Out/dismiss
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Mandamus, Locus Standi, Judicial Review, International Agreements, Access to Justice, Non Justiciability, Planning and Development, Implementation of EU Directives
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Environmental Law European Union Law Mandamus Locus Standi Judicial Review International Agreements +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Conway

Plaintiff

Ireland

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

The National Roads Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings (order 19, Rule 28 Applications) / High Court Judgment on Applications to Strike Out/dismiss

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to maintain the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the claims disclose a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings are justiciable or bound to fail

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claims are unsustainable and bound to fail as there is no legal obligation on the defendants to provide the reliefs sought, the claims are not justiciable, and the proper procedure for challenging the planning decision was not followed. The court has no jurisdiction to compel the State to ratify an international convention or to provide professional assistance to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the basis that all aspects are bound to fail.