Haughey v. Moriarty [1998] IEHC 213; [1999] 3 IR 1 (28th April, 1998)

Haughey v. Moriarty [1998] IEHC 213; [1999] 3 IR 1 (28th April, 1998)

The Tribunal of Inquiry was lawfully established under the 1921 Act and relevant Resolutions; the Terms of Reference, as interpreted by the Court, are not ultra vires or unconstitutional. The statutory provisions are consistent with the Constitution, as tribunals do not administer justice within Article 34. While fair procedures were not fully observed regarding discovery orders for connected persons, the breach was not fundamental and does not void the proceedings. Plaintiffs are entitled to clarification of ambiguities in Terms of Reference and reasonable opportunity to object to discovery orders.

Citation
[1999] 3 IR 1
Parties
First Named Plaintiff: Charles Haughey; Second Named Plaintiff: Mrs Haughey; Third Named Plaintiff: Ms Haughey; Fourth Named Plaintiff: Miss Ethna Haughey; Fifth Named Plaintiff: Miss Maureen Haughey; First Named Defendant: Mr Justice Moriarty; Second to Fourth Named Defendants: State Defendants
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims refused except for limited declarations
Legal Topics
Tribunal of Inquiry, Separation of Powers, Fair Procedures, Constitutional Rights, Costs Orders, Privacy, Interpretation of Terms of Reference
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Tribunal of Inquiry Separation of Powers Fair Procedures Constitutional Rights Costs Orders +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Haughey

First Named Plaintiff

Mrs Haughey

Second Named Plaintiff

Ms Haughey

Third Named Plaintiff

Miss Ethna Haughey

Fourth Named Plaintiff

Miss Maureen Haughey

Fifth Named Plaintiff

Mr Justice Moriarty

First Named Defendant

State Defendants

Second to Fourth Named Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal of Inquiry was lawfully established under the 1921 Act
  2. 2 Whether the Resolutions and Terms of Reference are constitutionally valid
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's procedures breached constitutional rights to privacy and fair procedures

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal of Inquiry was lawfully established under the 1921 Act and relevant Resolutions; the Terms of Reference, as interpreted by the Court, are not ultra vires or unconstitutional. The statutory provisions are consistent with the Constitution, as tribunals do not administer justice within Article 34. While fair procedures were not fully observed regarding discovery orders for connected persons, the breach was not fundamental and does not void the proceedings. Plaintiffs are entitled to clarification of ambiguities in Terms of Reference and reasonable opportunity to object to discovery orders.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims refused except for limited declarations

Orders

  • Declaration that plaintiffs are entitled to prima facie explanation from Tribunal of ambiguities in Terms of Reference
  • Declaration that second, third, fourth, and fifth named plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable opportunity to object to discovery orders for their bank accounts