Doherty -v- The Referendum Commission [2012] IEHC 211 (06 June 2012)

Doherty -v- The Referendum Commission [2012] IEHC 211 (06 June 2012)

The Commission's statements were not manifestly inaccurate or misleading, were within statutory powers, and did not materially affect the referendum result; the issues raised regarding Government discretion in EU treaty ratification are complex and unresolved, requiring reference to the Court of Justice, but do not warrant judicial intervention in this instance.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 211
Parties
Applicant: Pearse Doherty; Respondent: The Referendum Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Referendum Process, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Treaty Ratification, Separation of Powers, Role of Public Bodies
Constitutional Law European Union Law International Law Administrative Law Referendum Process Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Treaty Ratification +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pearse Doherty

Applicant

The Referendum Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Referendum Commission acted ultra vires in making statements about the European Stability Mechanism
  2. 2 Whether the Commission's statements are amenable to judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the Commission's statements were manifestly inaccurate or misleading and likely to affect the referendum result

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission's statements were not manifestly inaccurate or misleading, were within statutory powers, and did not materially affect the referendum result; the issues raised regarding Government discretion in EU treaty ratification are complex and unresolved, requiring reference to the Court of Justice, but do not warrant judicial intervention in this instance.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused on ultra vires grounds regarding ESM statements
  • Application refused on merits; no further orders