Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Ireland decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mahon Tribunal -v- Keena & anor [2009] IESC 78 (26 November 2009)
The Supreme Court ordered successful appellants to pay costs after they deliberately destroyed documents central to a tribunal inquiry into a leaked letter.
Savage -v- DPP [2008] IESC 39 (03 July 2008)
The Supreme Court refused to prohibit the prosecution of Ciaran Savage, holding that destruction of the car did not create a real risk of an unfair trial.
Perry v. Judges of the Circuit Criminal Court & Anor [2007] IEHC 124 (20 April 2007)
The High Court refused to prohibit a dangerous driving trial despite the destruction of the vehicle, finding no real risk of an unfair trial.
NWR FM t/a North West Radio v. Broadcasting Commission of Ireland & Anor [2004] IEHC 109 (23 June 2004)
The High Court refused judicial review of the BCI's award of a radio franchise, holding that the reasons given were adequate and the destroyed notes did not invalidate the decision.
McFarlane v. D.P.P [2004] IEHC 246 (18 July 2003)
The High Court granted judicial review in part, restraining further prosecution because the GardaĂ had lost vital physical evidence, creating a real risk of unfair trial.
Bowes v. D.P.P. [2003] IESC 203 (6 February 2003)
The Supreme Court addressed when the State’s loss or destruction of evidence can justify halting a criminal prosecution, distinguishing two vehicle cases.
Bowes v. D.P.P. [2003] IESC 9 (6 February 2003)
Supreme Court considered whether loss of a vehicle or motorcycle deprived accused persons of a fair trial. McGrath succeeded; Bowes did not.
Brennan v. Western Health Board [1999] IEHC 162 (18th May, 1999)
The absence of crucial medical records and the death of key personnel make it impossible for the Defendant to adequately defend the claim; the delay, though not attributable to the Plaintiff after coming of age, results in serious prejudice to the Defendant, warranting the striking out of the claim.
Source excerpt
Explore more
