Bailey & Bovale Developments Ltd v Flood(Planning Tribunal)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Hon. Mrs. JusticeDenham
• Judgment Date: 14 April 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IESC 11
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 14 April 2000

[2000] IESC 11

THE SUPREME COURT

Denham, J.

Murphy, J.

Barron, J.

No. 56/00

BAILEY & BOVALE DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. FLOOD(PLANNING TRIBUNAL)

BETWEEN

THOMAS BAILEY, CAROLINE BAILEY, BOVALE DEVELOPMENTSLIMITED

APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS

AND

MR. JUSTICE FEARGUS FLOOD, THE SOLE MEMBER OF THETRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY INTO CERTAIN PLANNING MATTERS ANDPAYMENTS

RESPONDENT

Citations:

BAILEY V FLOOD UNREP MORRIS 6.4.2000

GOODMAN INTERNATIONAL V HAMILTON 1992 2 IR 542

REDMOND V FLOOD 1999 1 ILRM 241

LAWLOR V FLOOD 1999 3 IR 107

MURPHY V FLOOD UNREP GEOGHEGAN 30.4.1999 1999/19/5920

KEEGAN V STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642

O'KEEFFE V BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39

R V LORD SAVILLE 1999 4 AER 860

Synopsis

Tribunals of Inquiry

Judicial review; applicants challenging decision of respondent to hear evidence of their financial affairs in public; whether decision of respondent reasonable.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Bailey v. Mr. Justice Flood - Supreme Court: Denham J., Murphy J., Barron J. - 14/04/2000

The applicants appealed against the order of the High Court (Morris P) refusing them the reliefs sought via judicial review. In particular the applicants claimed that their constitutional right to privacy was being infringed. Denham J, delivering judgment, held that the applicants had a constitutional right to privacy but this right was not an absolute one. The learned President had correctly applied the law relating to decisions of tribunals correctly. The appeal would accordingly be dismissed.

1 Judgment of the Court delivered by The Hon. Mrs. JusticeDenhamon the 14th day of April, 2000.

2 This is an appeal by Thomas Bailey, Caroline Bailey and Bovale Developments Limited, the applicants/appellants, hereinafter referred to as the applicants. The applicants are appealing against the judgment of the High Court, Morris P., delivered the 6th March, 2000, in proceedings in which the applicants claim relief by way of judicial review of a decision of the respondent.

3 The applicants sought judicial review of the ruling made on 8th February, 2000 of the Sole Member of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, hereinafter referred to as therespondent.

4 The said ruling concluded:

"I believe in the light of my knowledge of the issues and the events which have occurred to date that it is appropriate that the witnesses in question be called before the Tribunal to give evidence on oath of the matters which are relevant to the Tribunal's inquiries. It has been urged upon me that in view of the private nature of the proposed inquiry touching as it does upon the expenditure of money and acquisition of assets by the parties that such inquiries should be conducted in private. The Tribunal of Inquiries Evidence Act specifically provides for the evidence to be heard in public unless it is expedient to the public interest that I sit in private. I do not believe that there are sufficient grounds open to me to conduct the intended examination of the witnesses in private in the public interest and accordingly I believe that the examination of the witnesses shouldproceed."

5 The factual background to this case is set out in the judgment of the learned President. There is no conflict between the parties on thesefacts.

6 Counsel for the applicants, Mr. John Gordon, S.C., opened the appeal by referring to two basic grounds, namely,

7 (a) That the relevance...