Crotty v. An Taoiseach [1987] IESC 3 (18th February, 1987)
The Supreme Court held that a fair issue to be tried was established regarding the constitutional implications of ratifying the Single European Act, and that the balance of convenience justified the continuation of the interlocutory injunction to preserve the Court's jurisdiction and protect constitutional rights.
- Citation
- [1987] IESC 3
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Raymond Crotty; Defendants: An Taoiseach and Others
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction continued pending final hearing
- Legal Topics
- Ratification of Treaties, Interlocutory Injunctions, Constitutional Rights, Separation of Powers
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Raymond Crotty
Plaintiff
An Taoiseach and Others
Defendants
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff established a fair issue to be tried regarding the effect of ratification of the Single European Act under Article 29.4.3 of the Constitution
- 2 Whether the balance of convenience justifies the granting of an interlocutory injunction restraining ratification
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that a fair issue to be tried was established regarding the constitutional implications of ratifying the Single European Act, and that the balance of convenience justified the continuation of the interlocutory injunction to preserve the Court's jurisdiction and protect constitutional rights.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction continued pending final hearing
Orders
- Continuation of interlocutory injunction restraining the Government from ratifying the Single European Act until final hearing
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment