Grace v Ireland & Anor [2007] IEHC 90 (07 March 2007)

Grace v Ireland & Anor [2007] IEHC 90 (07 March 2007)

The plaintiff lacks locus standi to challenge s. 85(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1988, as he failed to establish that, absent the impugned requirement, he would be entitled to a discharge; the requirement to pay expenses and preferential debts is not incompatible with Article 6.1 ECHR or Article 40.3 of the Constitution, as the reasonable time principle does not require discharge without satisfying statutory conditions; and the claim for a declaration of incompatibility is misconceived.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 90
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Grace; Defendant: Ireland; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Constitutional and Human Rights Challenge (civil) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Discharge, Constitutionality of Statutory Provisions, European Convention on Human Rights Compatibility, Locus Standi, Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial), Article 13 ECHR (right to Effective Remedy), Article 40.3 Irish Constitution (right to Expeditious Proceedings)
Constitutional Law Bankruptcy Law Human Rights Law Bankruptcy Discharge Constitutionality of Statutory Provisions European Convention on Human Rights Compatibility Locus Standi Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial) +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Grace

Plaintiff

Ireland

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional and Human Rights Challenge (civil) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 85(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1988 is repugnant to the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether s. 85(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1988 is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to challenge s. 85(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff lacks locus standi to challenge s. 85(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1988, as he failed to establish that, absent the impugned requirement, he would be entitled to a discharge; the requirement to pay expenses and preferential debts is not incompatible with Article 6.1 ECHR or Article 40.3 of the Constitution, as the reasonable time principle does not require discharge without satisfying statutory conditions; and the claim for a declaration of incompatibility is misconceived.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim