Murphy & ors -v- Flood & ors [2010] IESC 21 (21 April 2010)

Murphy & ors -v- Flood & ors [2010] IESC 21 (21 April 2010)

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make findings of obstruction and hindrance in the context and terms used, referencing criminal offences, and breached fair procedures by failing to give notice and opportunity for submissions. The Chairman's order refusing costs was ultra vires and invalid.

Citation
[2010] IESC 21
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Joseph Murphy; Applicant/appellant: Frank Reynolds; Applicant/appellant: Joseph Murphy Structural Engineers Limited; Respondent: Mr. Justice Feargus M. Flood; Respondent: His Honour Judge Alan P. Mahon; Respondent: Her Honour Judge Mary Faherty; Respondent: His Honour Judge Gerald Keys; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; Tribunal's costs ruling quashed
Legal Topics
Costs in Tribunals, Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Fair Procedures, Statutory Interpretation, Administration of Justice
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Tribunal Law Costs in Tribunals Jurisdiction of Tribunals Fair Procedures Statutory Interpretation Administration of Justice

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Murphy

Applicant/appellant

Frank Reynolds

Applicant/appellant

Joseph Murphy Structural Engineers Limited

Applicant/appellant

Mr. Justice Feargus M. Flood

Respondent

His Honour Judge Alan P. Mahon

Respondent

Her Honour Judge Mary Faherty

Respondent

His Honour Judge Gerald Keys

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal was entitled to take into account substantive findings of corruption when exercising jurisdiction in respect of costs
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal was entitled to make findings of obstruction and hindrance as a matter of vires or in the manner it did
  3. 3 Whether appellants were precluded from advancing issues by reason of delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make findings of obstruction and hindrance in the context and terms used, referencing criminal offences, and breached fair procedures by failing to give notice and opportunity for submissions. The Chairman's order refusing costs was ultra vires and invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; Tribunal's costs ruling quashed

Orders

  • Time extended to challenge both Second and Third Interim Reports
  • Tribunal's refusal to award costs to appellants quashed