News for June, 2024

You're looking at 1–10 of 23 items.

June 26, 2024

The Language of Contracts: A Handbook of Drafting Techniques Now Available

The Language of Contracts: A Handbook of Drafting Techniques is now available for subscribers to the Company and Commercial Law service. 

How can drafters of English law contracts use language to insulate their contracts from the risk of an embarrassing and expensive dispute?

This book aims to answer that question. It helps drafters to be clear at every level: to reflect a logical structure, to make clear how provisions work coherently alongside one another, and to make the intended meaning of the contract language so clear that no party could be tempted to argue that it means something else.

Besides illustrating technical drafting techniques, the book prompts drafters to peer into an essentially unknowable future, so that their contracts operate resiliently if the unexpected happens. It is rooted in a study of how judges analyse language in the waves of contract dispute cases that reach the courts every year.

The book answers questions such as:

  • What are the most common drafting traps and how can drafters avoid falling into them?
  • How can drafters eliminate uncertainties as to how different provisions work together, so that the contract works coherently as a whole?
  • What questions should drafters ask themselves to make sure their contracts cover all the ground they need to?

The book distils the modern case law, and the rules of English grammar, into a checklist of recommendations for the busy practising drafter.

June 24, 2024

Visa Denial Upheld due to Insufficient Documentation Concerning Unverified Marriage

S.M. and M.T.A. v The Minister for Justice [2024] IECA 145 (Court of Appeal, Binchy J, 14 June 2024)

Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss judicial review proceedings challenging the refusal of a ‘D’ type visa for family reunification, on the grounds that the appellants failed to provide sufficient and satisfactory evidence to demonstrate the validity of their marriage, which was a key condition for the visa application. Despite a procedural flaw regarding the assessment of potential costs to the State, the court found that the decision would have been the same without this consideration, given the other substantive reasons for refusal.

Visa application – family reunification – judicial review – Court of Appeal – High Court – marriage certificate – documentation – proxy marriage – financial burden – policy – Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Services (INIS) – Article 41 of the Constitution – European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – certiorari – mandamus – proportionality assessment – attestation/apostille

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Key Cases Cited:

Gorry v Minister for Justice and Equality [2020] IESC 55
Mukovska v Minister for Justice and Equality [2021] IECA 340
T.A.R. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence [2014] IEHC 385
M.A. and Y.B. v Minister for Justice [2023] IEHC 291
Olakunori v Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IEHC 473
O.O. v Minister for Justice and Law Reform [2015] IESC 26
M.A. v Y.B. v the Minister for Justice [2024] IECA 26

June 21, 2024

Irish Employment Law Update for June

The June issue of Irish Employment Law is now live for our employment law subscribers.

This month's edition features the case of Seamus Mallon v The Minister for Justice, Ireland, and The Attorney General and discusses the system of mandatory retirement. 

Key words:

Mandatory retirement age ‒ judicial review ‒ Court Officers’ Act 1945 ‒ Council Directive 2000/78/EC, Employment Equality Directive ‒ Case C-411/05 Palacios de la Villa ‒ Donnellan v Minister for Justice [2008] IEHC 467 ‒ Case C-341/08 Petersen ‒ Case C-45/09 Rosenbladt, Joined Cases C-159/10 and C-160/10 Fuchs & Köhler ‒ Case C-141/11 Hörnfeldt ‒ Case C-378/17 Minister for Justice and Equality v Workplace Relations Commission ‒ R v Secretary of State for Employment ex p Equal Opportunities Commission [1995] 1 AC 1.

To request a free trial or to arrange a remote demonstration of any of our tax or legal services, email

June 19, 2024

Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Relitigate Previous Personal Injury Claim

Waliszewski v Republic of Ireland [2024] IEHC 351 (High Court, Bolger J, 11 June 2024)

High Court dismissed the plaintiff's proceedings, which sought to challenge the outcome of a previous personal injury claim and related appeals, on the grounds that the current claims were an abuse of process, frivolous, vexatious, and bound to fail, as they constituted a collateral attack on the decisions of the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. The plaintiff's grievances against the handling of his original case by the courts and his former solicitors had no credible basis.

High Court – dismissal – abuse of process – frivolous and vexatious – collateral attack – personal injury claim – inherent jurisdiction – finality in litigation – Order 19, Rule 28 (RSC)Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 – Section 26 of the Act of 2004 – appeal – Court of Appeal – Supreme Court – inherent jurisdiction – constitutional rights – EU Treaties – Universal Declaration of Human Rights – costs.

June 18, 2024

Issue 80 of Scottish Older Client Law Service Now Available

Issue 80 of Scottish Older Client Law Service is now available for subscribers. 

The following part of the work has been amended in light of recent developments:

Division E: Medical Matters

June 18, 2024

Google could not be added as Defendant in Defamation Case as Limitation Period had Expired

Gilroy & Anor v O'Leary [2024] IEHC 349 (High Court, Hyland J, 5 June 2024)

High Court refused an application by the plaintiffs to join Google as a defendant in a defamation case concerning a video published on YouTube, on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claim against Google was manifestly time-barred, as the video in question was first published on 23 June 2018, and the motion to join Google was not brought until after the one-year limitation period, extendable to a maximum of two years, had expired. The cause of action against Google accrued on the date the video was first viewable online, dismissing the plaintiffs' argument that the cause of action should start from the date they requested Google to remove the video.

Defamation – Google – YouTube – Statute of Limitations Act 1957 – time-barred – publication – joinder of defendant – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – Order 15 Rule 4 – inherent jurisdiction – High Court – cause of action – Defamation Act 2009 – limitation period – secondary publisher – manifestly statute barred.

June 17, 2024

Bloomsbury Cyber Law Briefing June 2024

The June issue of the Bloomsbury Cyber Law Briefing is now available for subscribers. 


You're looking at 1–10 of 23 items.