Butler v District Justice Ruane

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McCarthy J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1989
• Docket Number: (105/88)
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1989

1988 WJSC-SC 944

THE SUPREME COURT

Chief Justice

Walsh J.

Griffin J.

Hederman J.

McCarthy J.

(105/88)

BUTLER v. RUANE

JUDICIAL REVIEW

ANTHONY BUTLER

-v-

DISTRICT JUSTICE RUANE

Citations:

RSC O.84 r22.4

RSC O.122 r7

RSC O.122 r8

RSC O.52 r2

HUGHES, STATE V O'HANRAHAN 1986 ILRM 218

RSC O.112 r7

FITZSIMONS, STATE V KEARNEY 1981 IR 406

O'FLAHERTY, STATE V O FLOINN 1954 IR 295

R V ASHFORD JJ 1955 2 QBD 327

RSC O.84 r4

Synopsis:

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Time limit

Extension - Application ex parte - Propriety - Respondent sought to oppose review - Period allowed for filing and serving statement of opposition and verifying affidavit - Respondent applied ex parte, within the period, for extension of the period - Correct procedure adopted - ~See~ Practice, time limit - (105/88 - Supreme Court - 6/7/88)

|Butler v. Ruane|

PRACTICE

Time limit

Extension - Ex parte application - Propriety - Judicial review - Motion on notice - Statement of opposition - Extension of time sought by respondent for filing statement and serving verifying affidavit - The applicant obtained in the High Court leave to apply for an order of certiorari quashing an order of the District Court which convicted him of a summary offence - The order of the court directed him to apply for that relief by originating notice of motion and to serve the notice of motion and other documents on the Chief State Solicitor as the person representing the prosecutor - The order further directed the prosecutor, if he wished to oppose the applicant's motion, to file his statement of opposition in the Central Office and to serve a copy of such statement and such affidavit on all other parties not later than 7 days from the date of the service on him of the applicant's notice of motion - The applicant's notice of motion was served on the prosecutor on 4th March and on 10th March the prosecutor applied ex parte to the High Court for an order extending the period allowed to him for filing and serving his statement of opposition and verifying affidavit - Order 52, r. 2, states:- "Save as otherwise provided by these Rules, all such applications other than such as under the existing practice are made ex parte or are authorised by these Rules to be so made, shall be made by notice of motion to the parties concerned ..." - Order 122, r. 7, states:- "The Court shall have power to enlarge or abridge the time appointed by these Rules, or fixed by any order enlarging time, for doing any act or taking any proceeding, upon such terms (if any) as the Court may direct, and any such enlargement may be ordered although the application for the same is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or allowed" - Order 84, r. 22(4), provides that a respondent who intends to oppose an application for judicial review brought by motion on notice shall file in the Central Office a statement of opposition and an affidavit verifying the facts, and shall serve a copy of such statement and of such affidavit (if any) on all parties "not later than seven days from the date of service of the notice of motion or such other period as the Court may direct" - By the express terms of order 122, r. 8, the period allowed for delivering or filing any pleading, answer, or other document may be enlarged by consent in...