Desmond v. Moriarty [2004] IESC 3 (20 January 2004)

Desmond v. Moriarty [2004] IESC 3 (20 January 2004)

The Tribunal acted within its terms of reference in admitting and referring to the Glackin Report; fair procedures were provided equally to all parties; no breach of constitutional rights or natural justice occurred; references by counsel did not constitute grounds for relief; the applicant's right to privacy and good name was not infringed given the public nature of the Glackin Report and the public interest in the inquiry.

Citation
[2004] IESC 3
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Dermot Desmond; Respondent: Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tribunal Procedures, Fair Procedures, Relevance of Evidence, Freedom of Expression, Privacy
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Tribunal Procedures Fair Procedures Relevance of Evidence Freedom of Expression Privacy

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dermot Desmond

Applicant/appellant

Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal acted ultra vires its terms of reference by admitting the Glackin Report
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to provide fair procedures by not giving advance notice of references to the Glackin Report
  3. 3 Whether references by counsel were pejorative and constituted grounds for relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal acted within its terms of reference in admitting and referring to the Glackin Report; fair procedures were provided equally to all parties; no breach of constitutional rights or natural justice occurred; references by counsel did not constitute grounds for relief; the applicant's right to privacy and good name was not infringed given the public nature of the Glackin Report and the public interest in the inquiry.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court refusing relief affirmed