Access to Justice: Indaver Ireland criticised
High Court President Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns has ordered Indaver Ireland to bear part of the legal costs incurred by An Bord Pleanála and CHASE (Cork Harbour Alliance for A Safe Environment) in opposing Indaver’s judicial review application. In his judgement delivered 21 January 2013, Mr Justice Kearns described aspects of Indaver’s conduct of the case as ’an abuse of the court process’.
In June 2011, An Bord Pleanala refused Indaver’s planning application for a waste incinerator in Ringaskiddy, Co Cork. In July 2011, Indaver started a judicial review action in the High Court looking to quash this refusal by the Board. The judicial review was fixed for a five day hearing in the High Court starting on 23 October 2012. Indaver however withdrew just days before the hearing was due to start. The question of liability for costs of the case was argued before the President of the High Court in December 2012 when judgement was reserved. The Court considered the new law adopted in Ireland in 2010 under the Aarhus Convention, which is designed to protect access to justice in environmental law cases. The reserved judgment was delivered on 21 January 2013.
Mr Justice Kearns said that from 10th September 2012 onwards Indaver had conducted the case in a manner that ‘can only be seen as an abuse of the court process’. He said that Indaver ‘prolonged the case without intending to continue it and withdrew the proceedings at the last minute.’ He therefore awarded the Board and CHASE their costs as and from that date. (See Judgment paragraphs 26 and 27). The basis for his comments is set out at length in the Judgment.
Noonan Linehan Carroll Coffey represented CHASE in the action.
Landmark Ruling in Pringle Case
The Court of Justice has handed down a landmark ruling in the Pringle Case C-370/12 on the ESM treaty and EU treaty amendment.
The 27 judges of the CJEU have ruled that the ESM treaty obligations are not inconsistent with the provisions of the EU treaties. The Court also found that it was not essential to amend the EU treaties in order to permit member States to operate the ESM.
The judgment of the Court can be found here.
Commentary on the outcome appears in the current issue of the German Law Journal.
The EU law issues in the case had been referred to the CJEU by the Supreme Court for ruling. The case now returns to the Supreme Court for final determination.
Noonan Linehan Carroll Coffey represented Mr Pringle.
Citizens’ Guide to ESM treaty and Fiscal treaty
A Tale of Two Treaties: A Citizen’s Guide to the Stability Treaties of 2012
In this guide we give people an introduction to the content of each treaty and explain how the two treaties are interlinked. We also describe the proposed amendment to Article 136, agreed by EU Heads of Government to facilitate the establishment of the ESM.
Financial/Investment Advice Leading to Loss
We may be able to help as one of our recent cases in this area shows. In July 2010 the High Court confirmed a ruling by the Financial Ombudsman that Financial Advisors are under a duty to advise their clients properly, and may be held liable for losses suffered by clients if they breach that duty.
AIB v Financial Services Ombudsman and others
Judgment of High Court President Nicholas Kearns 22 July 2010
The Ombudsman ordered AIB to refund over €200,000 to our clients which, on the Bank’s advice, they had invested in bank shares in August 2008. AIB appealed the Ombudsman’s findings to the High Court and lost the appeal. AIB went on to seek permission to appeal the High Court decision to the Supreme Court and were refused permission.
Cork Flood Damage
We are advising a range of householders and business owners affected by the November 2009 flood in the Lee valley. Was the damage avoidable? Why did the flood occur as it did? How can action be taken to minimise the risk of a similarly devastating flood in future? These are among the questions we are seeking answers to on behalf of our clients.
Case Reports & Publications
Below you will find links to Court Reports of some interesting cases in which we represented the Plaintiff/Applicant.
Donal de Róiste v Judge Advocate General and Others.
Judgement of High Court of High Court in 2005 on a judicial review application.
Wm Peter O’Byrne v Dunnes Stores.
Labour Court Determination in 2003
Edward Horgan v An Taoiseach and Others.
Judgement of the High Court in 2003 concerning Government consent to US military overflights and use of Shannon.
Samuel Shinkwin v Quin-Con Ltd & Anor.
Judgement of Supreme Court in 2000 on company law issues arising in a personal injury action.
Raymond Crotty v An Taoiseach and Others.
Judgement of Supreme Court in 1987.
(in this case, we did not represent Raymond Crotty but Joe Noonan gave evidence on his behalf as the expert witness on the foreign policy implications of the Single European Act).