Conlon v Mohamed
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | FINLAY C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1989 |
| Neutral Citation | [1988] IESC-JILL 101401 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | (339/88) |
| Date | 01 January 1989 |
[1988] IESC-JILL 101401
THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT delivered on the 14th day of October 1988 by FINLAY C.J.
Judgment delivered by Finlay CJ [Nem diss]
This is an appeal brought by the Applicants against an Order made in the High Court by Mr. Justice Blayney dismissing an application for judicial review which was seeking an Order of Mandamus against the Southern Health Board to provide the services of a midwife for the birth of the first-named Applicant's child which is expected within the next couple of days.
The two Applicants are husband and wife and they are both persons entitled to medical services pursuant to the statutory provisions, to be provided by the Southern Health Board. They already have three children - one child and twins - and the first-named Applicant is expecting her fourth child. She has had a normal pregnancy so far, and the evidence is that she expects a normal uncomplicated birth. It is the decision oftwo Applicants that they would be anxious to have that birth take place in their own home, in County Cork.
The Applicants seek an Order pursuant to the provisions of Section 62(1) of the Health Act of 1970. That Section reads as follows:
"A Health Board shall make available without charge medical, surgical and midwifery services for attendance to the health in respect of motherhood of women who are persons with full eligibility or persons with limited eligibility."
The Applicant is a person within the definition of that Act who has full eligibility.
The issue on this appeal primarily turns on the question of the interpretation of that Section. There is no dispute that the Section applies whether a person with such eligibility is anxious to have their child born in a hospital or maternity home or at home, and that there is no difference in the extent of the obligation, though there may be differences in the method of providing it between those two situations. The Health Authority has under subsection (3) an obligation where a confinement is to take place otherwise than in a hospital or maternity home toprovide without charge obstetrical requisites and that obligation has been carried out in this case.
The issue which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
H.A.H. v S.A.A. (Validity of marriage)
...appears to have been accepted also as encapsulating Irish public policy on the issue of polygamy. So, for example, in Conlon v. Mohamed [1989] ILRM 523 (considered below) the Supreme Court dealt in one sentence with the question whether a couple who had entered a potentially polygamous marr......
-
H.A.H. v S.A.A.
...S18(3) REFUGEE ACT 1996 S18(4) DICEY & MORRIS ON CONFLICTS OF LAW 14ED r69 DICEY & MORRIS ON CONFLICTS OF LAW 14ED r73 CONLON v MOHAMED 1989 ILRM 523 BINCHY IRISH CONFLICTS OF LAW 1988 212 BINCHY IRISH CONFLICTS OF LAW 1988 213 HYDE v HYDE 1866 LR 1 P&D 130 BAINDAIL v BAINDAIL 1946 1 AER 3......
-
A (A P)(A Minor) and Others v Min for Justice and Others
...2 IR 298 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 13 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 8 IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3 CONLON v MOHAMMED 1989 ILRM 523 CONSTITUTION ART 40 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 2 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 3 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMA......
-
Hamza & Elkhalifa v Min for Justice
...ACT 1996 S18(4) REFUGEE ACT 1996 S18(3)A REFUGEE ACT 1996 S18(4)4B REFUGEE ACT 1996 S18(4)(A) FAMILY ACT 1995 S29 CONLON v MOHAMED 1989 ILRM 523 SOTTO MAYOR v DE BARROS (NO1) 3PD1 BERTHIAUME v DASTOUS 1930 AC 79 APT v APT 1948 P 83 DICEY & MORRIS CONFLICT OF LAWS 13ED CHAP 17 REFUGEE ACT 19......
-
'When Divorce is Away, Nullity's at Play': A New Ground for Annulment, its Dubious Past and its Uncertain Future
...v. JT. 140 NJ Super. 77, 2335 A 2d 204. " Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee (1886) LR I P & D 130; Conlan v. Mohammed [1987] ILRM 172 (HC), [1989] ILRM 523 (SC). [Vol. I Trinity College Law Review (v) where there is an absence of "full, free and informed consent" as stipulated in the landmark Sup......