Delargy v Minister for the Environment and Local Government

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Roderick Murphy
• Judgment Date: 10 August 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2006] IEHC 267
• Court: High Court
• Date: 10 August 2005

[2006] IEHC 267

THE HIGH COURT

No. 122 98 P/2000

DELARGY v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT & ORS

BETWEEN/

DENISE DELARGY

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND BY ORDER THE MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU OF IRELAND

DEFENDANTS

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) REGS 1962 SI 14/1962 ART 6

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) REGS 1962 SI 14/1962 ART 6(2)

MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU OF IRELAND (MIBI) AGREEMENT 1964

HOGAN & MORGAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN IRELAND 816

MESKILL v CIE 1973 IR 121

BLASCAOD MOR TEORANTA & ORS v COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND 2000 3 IR 565 2001 1 ILRM 423

DUFF v MIN AGRICULTURE 1997 2 IR 22

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S65(1)

PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD v MIN ENVIRONMENT 1987 IR 23

O'NEILL v CLARE CO COUNCIL 1983 ILRM 141

BAKHY v MEDICAL COUNCIL 1990 1 IR 515

EMERALD MEATS v MIN AGRICULTURE 1997 2 ILRM 275

MOYNE v LONDON PORT & HARBOUR CMSRS 1986 IR 299

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3

CONSTITUTION ART 40.1

Abstract:

Administrative law - Remedy against Minister - Whether declaration of invalidity of administrative act gave rise to cause of action for damages

The Plaintiff was excluded from cover by the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland by virtue of a Regulation which the Court declared was invalid. By agreement between the parties, the Court was asked to determine the consequences of the Minister acting ultra vires the powers conferred on him by the Oireachtas in relation to the exclusion of cover.

Held by Murphy J. that the Plaintiff was entitled to a remedy against the Minister. The Court, in making the declarations, was of the view that the Plaintiff's constitutional rights had not been protected.

Reporter: R.W.

1 Mr. Justice Roderick Murphy dated the 10th day of August, 2005.

1. Principal judgment

2 By judgment dated 18 ^th March, 2005, the court declared, as prayed for in paragraph (3) of the prayer to the amended statement of claim delivered 31 ^st August, 2002, that Article 6 of the Road Traffic (Compulsory Insurance) Regulation, 1962 (the Regulation) was invalid and that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, the first named defendant herein, had acted ultra vires the powers conferred on him by the Oireachtas.

3 As is clear from the judgment, the reason for the declaration was that the Minister had arbitrarily restricted cover by the inclusion by sub-article (2) of a person being conveyed by a cycle from the definition of passenger. Accordingly, the declaration should refer to Article 6(2) and not to Article 6 as sought by the plaintiff.

2. Present application

4 By agreement between the parties the court was asked to consider the appropriate form of ancillary relief.

5 Mr. Patrick Connolly, S.C., on behalf of the Bureau, the fourth named defendant, submitted that the judgment was clear in respect of the position of the Bureau. At p. 10 of the judgment it was stated:

"At the time of the accident there was no requirement to have cover for pillion passengers. Accordingly, the MIBI had and has no obligation under the agreement to meet the judgment which had been recovered by the plaintiff in respect of her injuries."

6 The judgment concluded that the MIBI had no duty to indemnify.

7 The court had refused the application, in para. (9) of the statement of claim in respect of a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to claim as against the MIBI in respect of the liability of (the driver) to the plaintiff on foot of (the judgment obtained).

8 Mr. Connolly submitted that there was confusion as to what should have been the statutory provisions at any given time and what obligations the Bureau had. The Bureau was a voluntary undertaking whose obligation was co-terminous with the obligation to ensure. It was concerned with funding rather than with compensation for which it required a degree of certainty. Over forty years had passed since the 1964 agreement which was the applicable agreement.

9 The Bureau did not indemnify the State against any invalidity in law.

10 It was a statutory requirement that all insurers subscribe to the Bureau as a prerequisite of conducting insurance business in the State.

11 The Bureau could not re-negotiate the contractual risk undertaken by them for the relevant period.

12 Mr. Michael Collins, S.C., on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had a judgment and had obtained a declaration as against the Minister.

13 The plaintiff had been excluded from cover by virtue of a Regulation which was now declared invalid.

14 The court was referred to Hogan & Morgan: Administrative Law at 816, which refers to breach of statutory duty in the context of government liability.

15 He referred to Meskil v. C.I.E. [1973] I.R. 121 and to Budd J.'s judgment in An Blascaod Mór Teoranta v. Commissioners for Public Works and to Duff v. Minister for Agriculture and Food [1997] 2 I.R. 22 where a mistake of law entitled the plaintiff to damages as against the Minister in respect of milk quotas.

16 Mr. James Connolly, S.C., on behalf of the State parties, submitted that the grounds in An Blascaod Mór was that of discrimination, while that in Duff was the legitimate expectation, neither of which applied in the present case.

17 There was no duty on the Minister to make provision for the plaintiff....