Daly v an Taoiseach and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Barniville P.,Phelan J.,Bradley J.
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 729
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record No. 2025/110 JR

Between/

Patrick Daly

Applicant

and

An Taoiseach, Government of Ireland, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

[2025] IEHC 729

Barniville P.

Phelan J.

Bradley J.

Record No. 2025/110 JR

THE HIGH COURT

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

APPEARANCES

Feichín McDonagh SC, Eileen Barrington SC, John Biggins BL and Brendan Hennessy BL for the Plaintiff instructed by Rogers Law Solicitors

Rossa Fanning SC (Attorney General), Catherine Donnelly SC, David Fennelly SC, Francis Kiernan BL and Emma Synott BL instructed by the Chief State Solicitors Office

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 19 ^th day of December 2025

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION	3
2. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS	3
3. SEPARATE JUDGMENTS	5
4. THE PROCEEDINGS	5
5. THE EVIDENCE IN THE PROCEEDINGS	8
(A) Grounding Affidavit of Deputy Patrick Daly	8
(B) Affidavit of Secretary General John Callinan	9
(C) Replying Affidavit of Deputy Daly	13
(D) Affidavit of Former Minister of State John Halligan	14
(E) Expert Evidence	14
6. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS	15
7. STATUTORY PROVISIONS	18
8. CHRONOLOGY	20
(A) General	20
(B) General Election	21
(C) Assembly of Dáil Éireann on 18th December 2024	21
(D) Election of Ceann Comhairle	22
(E) Nomination of An Taoiseach	22
(F) Appointment of Government	22
(G) Presidential Appointment and Seals of Office	24
9. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES	25
10. ANALYSIS AND DECISION	30
(A) Justiciability	30
(B) Constitutional Prescription: Whether the Rule of 15 Infringed	32
(C) Constitutional Interpretation and Clear Disregard	35
(D) Application of interpretative principles in assessing the attendance and participation of Ministers of State at Government meetings	38
(i) The historical position	38
(ii) Popular sovereignty	41
(E) No Express or Implied Infringement of Article 28	43
(F) Collective Responsibility	46
(G) Cabinet Confidentiality	64
11. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS	67
APPEARANCES	69

1. INTRODUCTION

1 This is the judgment of the Court (Barniville P., Siobhán Phelan J. and Bradley J.) in these judicial review proceedings which have been brought by Deputy Patrick Daly, a member of Dáil Éireann for the Kerry constituency, pursuant to leave granted by the High Court (Gearty J.) on 29 ^th January 2025.

2 In these proceedings Deputy Daly contends that the practice of allowing certain Ministers of State to regularly attend and participate in meetings of the Government breaches a number of fundamental provisions of the Constitution, specifically Articles 6, 13.2, 28.1, 28.4.1°, 28.4.2° and 28.4.3°.

3 Separate plenary proceedings have been brought by another member of Dáil Éireann, Deputy Paul Murphy, in which the same practice has also been challenged. While some of the same grounds of challenge have been advanced by Deputy Murphy in those proceedings, the focus of his case and the evidence adduced by and on his behalf in that case is somewhat different to the focus of and the evidence in Deputy Daly's case.

4 Both cases were heard sequentially by the Court between 7 ^th and 11 ^th July 2025. We are grateful to the parties in the two cases for facilitating the expeditious and efficient hearing of the cases in that week.

5 The judgment of the Court in Deputy Murphy's case is also being delivered today with the neutral citation [2025] IEHC 730. For convenience, the proceedings brought by Deputy Murphy will be referred to in this judgment as the “ Murphy proceedings”.

6 Although we reach the same ultimate conclusions in the two cases, as noted, the evidence adduced and the submissions made in each case were not identical and, as a consequence, the treatment of the evidence and the analysis of the submissions are dealt with somewhat differently in the two judgments. For completeness, it is necessary that both judgments should be read together.

7 For the reasons set out in detail in this judgment and summarised at paragraphs 343 to 358 below, we are satisfied that Deputy Daly's claims in the proceedings must fail and that his application for reliefs by way of judicial review must be refused.

2. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS

8 Article 28 of the Constitution concerns the Government. Under Article 28.1 the Government shall consist of not more than fifteen members who shall be appointed by the President. The proper interpretation and application of this numerical restriction and whether it precludes attendance at, and participation in, Government meetings by persons other than one of the fifteen constitutionally appointed members of Government is at the heart of these proceedings.

9 This question arises because in addition to the fifteen Government members (including the Taoiseach) appointed in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, twenty-three members of the 34 ^th Dáil currently stand appointed as Ministers of State following their appointment pursuant to s.1(1) of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1977 (the “1977 Act”) and four Ministers of State regularly attend meetings of Government and are paid an additional allowance in respect of that attendance pursuant to s. 3A of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Offices ( Amendment) Act 1998 (the “1998 Act”), as amended by various further pieces of legislation, including the Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Offices ( Amendment) Act 2025.

10 The four Ministers of State in question are Deputy Mary Butler (the Government Chief Whip) Minister of State with responsibility for Mental Health, Deputy Hildegarde Naughton was Minister of State with responsibility for Disability, Deputy Noel Grealish is Minister of State with responsibility for Food Promotion, New Markets, Research and Development and Deputy Seán Canney is Minister of State with responsibility for International and Road Transport, Logistics, Rail and Ports.

11 After the hearing of Deputy Daly's application and before delivery of this judgment, on 19 ^th November 2025, the Taoiseach announced the following changes for the information of the Dáil.

12 The Taoiseach stated that having informed the President that Dáil Éireann had approved his nomination of Deputy Hildegarde Naughton to be a member of the Government, the President had appointed her on 18 ^th November 2025 and the Taoiseach had assigned Minister Naughton responsibility for the Department of Education and Youth.

13 Further, on 18 ^th November 2025 the Taoiseach assigned the Department of Finance to the Tánaiste Simon Harris and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Defence to Minister Helen McEntee.

14 Also, on 18 ^th November 2025, on the Taoiseach's nomination, the Government appointed Deputy Emer Higgins to be a Minister of State at the Department of Children, Equality and Disability with special responsibility for disability. Minister of State Higgins would from then on replace Minister Naughton as a Minister of State invited to attend meetings of the Government. Additionally, on 18 ^th November 2025, on the Taoiseach's nomination, the Government appointed Deputy Frank Feighan to be Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation with special responsibility for public procurement, digitalisation and eGovernment.

15 Those changes noted, this judgment proceeds based on the situation which existed at the time of the hearing of this application.

16 The fundamental contention of these proceedings brought by way of judicial review and the separate plenary proceedings brought by Deputy Murphy, is that the practice of attendance at, and participation by, the relevant Ministers of State at meetings of the Government has been contrived to circumvent the “ rule of 15” prescribed under Article 28.1 of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

17 Neither Deputy Daly (nor Deputy Murphy) has sought to challenge any particular or identified Government decision. In both cases, their stated focus is to ensure that the Government complies with the Constitution in its decision-making process and the reliefs pursued are consistent with this approach.

18 Indeed, insofar as both deputies challenge the constitutionality of s. 3A of the 1998 Act which provides for the payment of allowances to the relevant Ministers of State, in their proceedings, the challenge is contingent on the case made that it is not constitutionally permissible for such Ministers of State to regularly attend, and participate in, meetings of the Government. It is accepted that if there is no constitutional impediment to individuals other than Government Ministers attending and participating in meetings of the Government (in addition to those present in an administrative, advisory or support role), then it is not unconstitutional for the Oireachtas to provide for an amount of money to be paid to them for that purpose.

19 In summary, therefore, the context of the challenge brought by Deputies Daly and Murphy concerns the attendance and participation of persons at meetings of the Government, often referred to as the “Cabinet”, and focuses on the regular attendance and participation of the relevant Ministers of State. Nowhere in the 1937 Constitution is the word “Cabinet” used. Similarly, the phrase “Super Junior” has no constitutional or legislative foundation. We, in the main, use the terms “Super Junior Minister” or “relevant Ministers of State” to connote Ministers of State attending regularly at Government meetings.

3. SEPARATE JUDGMENTS

20 Notwithstanding any differences between these proceedings and the claims made in the Murphy proceedings, at their...