Crossan v Council of Kins's Inns

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Justice Smyth
• Judgment Date: 15 January 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] IEHC 80
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: No. 340 JR/1998
• Date: 15 January 1999

[1999] IEHC 80

THE HIGH COURT

No. 340 JR/1998

CROSSAN v. COUNCIL OF KINS'S INNS

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

SEAN CROSSAN

APPLICANT

AND

THE COUNCIL OF KING'S INNS, THE HONOURABLE SOCIETY OFKING'S INNS AND THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF KING'S INNS

RESPONDENTS

Citations:

ADAPTATION OF CHARTERS ACT 1926

RSC O.84 r18(12)

R V GOUGH 1993 AC 646

RAJAH V COLLEGE OF SURGEONS 1994 1 IR 384

COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS V MIN FOR CIVIL SERVICE 1985 AC 374

EOGAN V UCD 1996 1 IR 390

PESCA VALENTIA LTD V MIN FOR FISHERIES 1990 2 IR 305

MCCORMACK V GARDA SIOCHANA COMPLAINTS BOARD 1997 2 ILRM 321

HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND 4ED V16 PARA 955

KIELY V MIN FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 1977 IR 267

WILEY V REVENUE COMMISSIONERS 1993 ILRM 482

DUGGAN V AN TAOISEACH 1989 ILRM 710

WEBB V IRELAND 1988 IR 354

GEOGHEGAN V INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN IRELAND 1995 3 IR 86

Synopsis

Education

Judicial review; education; certiorari; mandamus; natural and constitutional justice; ultra vires; bias; duty to give reasons; legitimate expectations; applicant was denied the right to defer the annual examinations at the respondent institution; whether this refusal breached the requirements of fair procedures; whether the appeal procedure was fair; whether the respondent acted unreasonably; whether natural and constitutional justice were complied with; whether there were procedural irregularities

Held: Application for judicial review refused (High Court - Smyth J. - 15/01/1999)

Crossan v. The Council of King's Inns

While the respondents failed to give reasons for their decisions in refusing the applicant's application and subsequent appeal to defer taking the second respondent's diploma course part 2 examination to the academic year 1989/99, this was not a case in which the absence of reasons by the first respondent in refusing the appeal left the decision open to judicial review. The matter was not of a nature that necessitated the giving of reasons. On a consideration of the evidence as a whole the court was satisfied that before any decision at any level was made by the respondents the applicant had made his own decisions. These presupposed without any rational basis that no matter what application he made for, deferral would be in his favour. The applicant voluntarily disadvantaged himself and when this deferral application brought about a situation which was not to his liking he proceeded to complain and blame the respondents. The decision of the third respondent was not ultra vires. It was a proper valid decision.The High Court so held in ruling that the application failed on all grounds.

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Smythdelivered the 15th day of January1999.

2 By Order of 28th August, 1998 the Applicant was given leave to apply by way of an application for Judicial Review for the reliefs sought at paragraph (D) of the Statement (grounding the application)dated 27th August, 1998, top wit-

"D. Reliefs Sought"

(i) Certiorari by way of an application for Judicial Review in respect of the refusal of the Respondents on or about the 5th May, 1998 to grant a deferral of the annual second year diploma examinations for a period of year.

(ii) Mandamus by way of application for Judicial Reveiw directing the Respondents to grant a deferral of the Applicant's second year dimploma exams for the academic year 1997/1998 to1998/1999.

(iii) A declaration that the procedures set in place by the Respondents in relation to applications for deferral and the manner and fashion in which the Respondents dealt with the referral to include the right of appeal to the 5th May, 1998 is unreasonable, unfair, in breach of the Applicant's entitlement to natural justice and fair procedures and in break of the Applicant's constitutional rights of fairprocedures.

(iv) A declaration by way of an applicant for Judicial Review that the purported refused by the Respondents on the 5th May, 1998 is ultra vires, void and of no force or effect in circumstances whereby at the date of the said decision and a communication thereof to the Applicant afforded the Applicant no opportunity to prepare or be in a position to sit the aforesaid exams to include the periodic assessmentexaminations.

(v) An injunction by way of an application for judicial Review that the purported refusal by the Respondent on the 5th May, 1998 is ultra vires, void and of no forces or effects in circumstances whereby at the date of the date of the said decision and a communication thereof to the Applicant afforded the Applicant no opportunity to prepare or be in a position to sit the aforesaid exams to include the periodic assessment examinations.

(vi) Certiorari by way of application for Judicial Review that the purported refusal by the Respondents on the 5th May, 1998 is ultra vires, void and of no force or effect in circumstances whereby at the date of the said decision and a communication thereof to the Applicant afforded the Applicant no opportunity to prepare or be in a position to sit the aforesaid exams to include the periodic assessment examinations.

(vii) Mandamus by way if application for Judicial Review that the purported refusal by the Respondents on the 5th May, 1998 is ultra vires, void and of no force or effect in circumstances whereby at the date of the soild decision and a communication thereof to the Applicant no opportunity to prepare or be in a position to sit the aforesaid exams include the periodic assessment examinations.

(viii) Damages.

3 On the gorunds seth forth at paragraph "E" of the aforesaid statement, viz

"E. (i) Certiorari by way of Judicial Reveiw:-"

1. The Repondent is the entity is the charged with the administration of the educational system of the Honourable Society of King's Inn which has as its purpose anb effect the governance of and admission to the Bar of Ireland and has as its purpose and effect an objective the imposition and the appropritate standards of education necessary for admissiom to the Bar.

2. The Repondents acted ultra vires its power as established under the Royal Chapter 1888 as given effect pursuant to by the provisions of the Adaptation of Chapters Act, 1926.

3. By letter dated 18th December, 1997 the Applicant requested in writing a deferral of the sitting of the second Diploma exams upon personal grounds of secound Diploma (sic) for the academic year1997/1998.

4. By letter dated 9th February, 1998 the request was refused by the Education Commitee and subsequent there to the Apllicant appealed as is his entitlement, to the Council who on or about the 5th May, 1998 determined to refuse the Applicant's application and so informed the Applicant on the 8th May, 1998 at a time when the annual examinations had already commenced and at the time when six periodic assessment examinations had already passed.

5. The purported refusal and decision in unreasonable and or irrational and thereby ultra vires and is particularly so in circumstances whereby the procedures set in train do not permit a determination and communication of such decision to the Applicant at a time that permitted the Applicant to prepare such exam.

6. In addition, in reaching the said determination the Repondents did not take into account the personal circumstances of the Applicant in the circumstances whereby the aforesaid deferral had been sought consequent upon the adoption of a baby by the Applicant and his spouse in January, 1998.

7. In addition, as a consquence of the matters aforesaid, the Respondent failed to consider the reasonbale interests of the Applicant and its (sic) own position in the context of the appropriate and proper administration of the education system. In addition, the establishment of a system for the determination of appeals that did not permit a determination earlier than 5th May, 1998 its ultra vires, unreasonable, irrational and any decision based thereupon void.

8. The Respondent failed to act in accordance with the principles of basic fairness of procedures and of natural and constitutional justice. As a consequence of the failure the Applicant was not afforded an appropriate or proper opportunity to either prepare for the said annual exams or attend at the periodic assessments. Particularly so when the Applicant in December, 1997 had been informed by Mr. .Waldron, the Directed of Education, that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a deferral.

4 (ii)(sic)

5 1. The grounds relied upon on paragraph e(i) are repeated mutatis mutandis in respect of the application for the reliefherein.

6 2. In circumstances whereby the procedures in place afford the Applicant an entitlement to appeal to the Council Committee and in circumstances whereby the Council Committee did not set to hear and determine the said appeal on the 5th May, 1998 is unreasonable, irrational void and a breach of basis fairness and procedures and the Applicant's constitutional rights to fair procedures particularly so in circumstances whereby when the said decision or refusal was communicated to the Applicant after the commencement of the said exams and after the expiration of the periodic assessment exams

7 (iii) Declaration Relief

8 1. The grounds relied upon paragraph e(i) and (ii) are repeated mutatis mutandis in respect of the application for reliefsherein.

9 2. Having regard to the nature and matters in respect of which relief is sought by way of orders of certiorari and mandamus herein, the nature of the Respondents against whom the relief may be granted in all the circumstances of the case, it would be just and convenient for this Honourable Court to grant the declaratory relief sought. The Applicant further relies upon Order 84, Rule 18(12) of the Rules of the SuperiorCourts.

10 (iv) Injunctive Relief.

11 1. The grounds relief upon in paragraph e(i), (ii) and (iii) herein are repeated mutatis mutandis in respect of the application of this relief.

12 2. The...