Mungovan -v- Clare County Council [2017] IECA 321 (13 December 2017)

Mungovan -v- Clare County Council [2017] IECA 321 (13 December 2017)

The plaintiff's claims, though framed as tortious and constitutional, are fundamentally public law challenges to the lawfulness of the Register and are subject to judicial review time limits by analogy. The cause of action accrued on 7 March 2006 when the plaintiff was first refused inclusion on the Register. The proceedings, commenced on 4 November 2011, were not brought promptly or within the three-month period required by Order 84, Rule 21, and no good reason was advanced to extend time. The claims are therefore time-barred.

Citation
[2017] IECA 321
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: John James Mungovan; Defendant/respondent: Clare County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Statute of Limitations, Ultra Vires, Public Law Time Limits, Declaratory Relief, Damages for Breach of Constitutional Rights, Malicious Falsehood
Administrative Law Planning Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Statute of Limitations Ultra Vires Public Law Time Limits Declaratory Relief +2 more

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John James Mungovan

Plaintiff/appellant

Clare County Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claims are time-barred under s. 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 or Order 84, Rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether the operation and maintenance of the Register by the defendant is ultra vires and unlawful
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages for breach of constitutional rights and malicious falsehood can avoid judicial review time limits

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claims, though framed as tortious and constitutional, are fundamentally public law challenges to the lawfulness of the Register and are subject to judicial review time limits by analogy. The cause of action accrued on 7 March 2006 when the plaintiff was first refused inclusion on the Register. The proceedings, commenced on 4 November 2011, were not brought promptly or within the three-month period required by Order 84, Rule 21, and no good reason was advanced to extend time. The claims are therefore time-barred.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court dated 14 October 2014 affirmed
  • Plaintiff's claims dismissed as time-barred