-
Print
-
-
-
Email this link
Share Link
Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend
Email this link
or copy the link directly:
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.
-
News for October, 2020
You're looking at 1–10 of 29 items.
October 29, 2020
Court of Appeal refuses debtor's application for the court to review its own unapproved judgment in proceedings concerning mortgage debts and an issue concerning a cross-border merger involving the respondent bank
October 26, 2020
High Court, in a case stated from the Valuation Tribunal, finds that the tribunal was erroneous in point of law in finding that the right to street furniture should not be included in this valuation
October 26, 2020
Ryanair DAC vs An Taoiseach [2020] IEHC 461
Judicial review proceedings – lawfulness of travel advice – whether separation of powers infringed – alleged mandatory language of advice – power to make legislation under s 31 Health Act 1947
On Tuesday 2 October 2020, Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered judgment in proceedings taken by the appellant airline against the Government, which related to a series of statements advising members of the public against foreign travel. The application for judicial review was supported by Aer Lingus, who had been joined as a notice party. Prior to commencing our discussion of this case, it is worth repeating the point of the learned judge, who noted that the term ‘advice’ has been used throughout the judgment in a guarded sense, as it was a central contention of the appellant that public statements made by the Government were not actually advice but rather, amounted to a formal restriction on travel in a legal sense. The same caveat applies to this case note.
October 22, 2020
High Court grants application to find the respondents as land owners in contempt of court for persistent failure to abide by Court's final orders (Noonan J) to discontinue waste operations on site made in 2016, on the grounds that, despite being granted time and opportunities to do so, the respondents have failed to put in any valid defence to the allegations of non–compliance being made against them; and the court decides that the appropriate penalty for such contempt is a fine payable to the county council to be a charge on lands in furtherance of achieving full remediation, together with injunctive relief restraining the respondents from dealing in any way whatsoever with their lands.
You're looking at 1–10 of 29 items.