Constitutional Justice: Audi Alteram Partem

Front 1

Mooney v An Post

Back 1

Natural justice as a concept is "necessarily an imprecise one which may differ significantly from case to case"

Front 2

Kiely v Minister for Social Welfare (No.2)

Back 2

Decision maker "may not act in such a way as to imperil a fair hearing or a fair result."

Where an essential fact is in controversy, a hearing is unfair if one side is required to give oral and confrontational evidence and the other can submit written and therefore basically uncontested evidence

Front 3

Ryan v VIP Cooperative Society

Back 3

Suspension of a taxi driver by his cooperative - court held that suspension was invalid, because he had not been furnished with names and addresses of complainants along with details of complaints - minimal obligations in relation to disciplinary tribunals

Front 4

O'Brien v Moriarty (No.3)

Back 4

Court did not consider it a breach of fair procedures for the Department to fail to obtain evidence from a foreign witness

Front 5

Atlantean Ltd v Minister for Communications

Back 5

Challenge to Minister's reduction of plaintiff's mackerel quota on basis of alleged failure to declare landing of fish - Clarke J ruled that the failure to disclose evidence justifying the finding meant that the Minister had given a "bare accusation"

Front 6

O'Shea Fishing Co v Minister for Agriculture

Back 6

Follow up to Atlantean - court had been justified given that evidence later proved incorrect when proper procedure was followed

Front 7

International Fishing Vessels v Minister for Marine (No.2)

Back 7

Where a decision is based on matters which have been notified, the fact that other reasons also motivated the finding does not render the decision invalid

Front 8

Dellway v NAMA

Back 8

NAMA argued that extraordinary economic circumstances justified failure to give notice was rejected as a restriction on constitutional justice

Front 9

Gallagher v Corrigan

Back 9

Discipline proceedings against prison officers - report which had "for explanation please" was not formal notice of proceedings

Front 10

Gallagher v Revenue Commissioners

Back 10

Blayney J held that plaintiff "well knew" of case against him

Front 11

Zhang v Athlone Institute of Technology

Back 11

Dunne J held that applicant was not given any opportunity to be heard in relation to a penalty and could not anticipate that the meeting would terminate in a penalty being imposed prior it

Front 12

State (Williams) v The Army Pensions Board

Back 12

Army Pensions Board denied applicant access to husband's medical records on the grounds of executive privilege, although the Board was to consider if they were relevant - justification was not valid, she had a right to the information

Front 13

O'Callaghan v Mahon

Back 13

Regardless of whether the Tribunal considered matters confidential, materials created during the course of investigation should be shared with the applicant for cross-examination

Front 14

PPA v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

Back 14

Access to relevant provisions is important in order to achieve consistency

Front 15

Re Haughey

Back 15

(i) Applicant should have been furnished with a copy of the evidence which reflected on his good name

(ii) Should be allowed to cross-examine his accuser

(iii) Should be allowed to give rebutting evidence

(iv) Be permitted to address Committee in his defence

Front 16

Frenchurch Properties Ltd v Wexford Co Co

Back 16

Planning authority did not need to provide oral hearing or enter into a dialogue in deciding in "substantial work" had been completed - deferential attitude

Front 17

State (Murphy) v Kielt

Back 17

Barron J held that an oral hearing is required "where the rights of an individual are seriously threatened and he would not otherwise have any other means either of seeking to vindicate himself or to alleviate the hardship he may suffer"

Front 18

Flanagan v UCD

Back 18

Plagiarism action - court ruled that oral hearing should have been similar to court proceedings given seriousness of accusation (ie. cross examination, legal representation)

Front 19

Lyons v Financial Services Ombudsman

Back 19

Although Financial Services Ombudsman is intended to be informal, an oral hearing may be necessary when essential facts are in dispute

Front 20

State (Boyle) v General Medical Services (Payments) Board

Back 20

Court ruled that expert who had compiled statistical data could not be made subject to cross-examination because the applicant had no specific objection

Front 21

Borges v Fitness to Practice Committee

Back 21

Admission of hearsay evidence from British investigation which could not be cross-examined was invalid

Front 22

O'Brien v Personal Injuries Assessment Board

Back 22

In a situation where there may be serious consequences for a person and the Oireachtas has not excluded it, a person may be entitled to obtain legal representation

Front 23

Barry v Sentence Review Group

Back 23

Legal representation was not allowed because proceedings were informal and non-adversarial

Front 24

Burns & Hartigan v Governor of Castlerea Prison

Back 24

Because procedure dealt with factual issues in the day to day running of a prison, the overall obligation of fairness did not require legal representation

Front 25

R v Home Secretary ex p. Tarrant

Back 25

Relevant factors for the English court in determining if legal representation was allowable included seriousness of consequences, points of law, capacity, complexity, reasonable speed and overall fairness

Front 26

Barry v Medical Council

Back 26

Because of complainants right to privacy and nature of complaints, decision not to hold a public heating was upheld

Front 27

O'Brien v Bord na Mona

Back 27

Failure of official to inform Board of alternative offer to compulsory purchase made by farmer was either an invalid delegation of decision making powers or a breach of applicants right to be heard

Front 28

Genmark v Minister for Health

Back 28

In rejecting applicant's application, Minister relied on National Drugs Advisory Board advice without reference to material on which it was based

Front 29

Jeffs v NZ Dairy Production

Back 29

Evidence collecting body on allocation of dairy quotas failed to include evidence from public meetings in giving report to Board