Fleury v Minister for Agriculture and Another
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hedigan |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] IEHC 543 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 12 December 2012 |
[2012] IEHC 543
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
KEEGAN v GARDA SIOCHANA UNREP SUPREME 1.5.2012 2012 IESC 29
JUDICIAL REVIEW: Practice & procedure
Amendment of grounds - Substantial delay - Onus on applicant to explain delay - Relevance of new grounds - Interests of justice - Admissibility of grounds - Arguable point - Enlargement of scope of proceedings - Whether applicant should be allowed to amend grounds eight years and nine months after leave granted - Keegan v Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission [2012] IESC 29 applied - Application to amend grounds refused (2003/744JR - Hedigan J - 12/12/2012) [2012] IEHC 543
Fleury v Min for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
Facts: The applicant had taken judicial review proceedings against the Minister. The proceedings themselves had been instituted a number of years earlier. The applicant brought the present application seeking to amend the statement of grounds. It was contended that due to recent developments there had been an element of mala fides on the part of the respondent. The applicant sought to amend the pleadings to reflect same.
Held by Hedigan J in refusing the application: It appears that the controversial evidence had been disclosed some years previously. The onus was upon the applicant to explain the delay and no explanation had been given for the delay of almost nine years in raising these matters as new grounds. Insofar as issues of mala fides were raised these could be dealt with by the trial Judge as a matter of weighing the evidence and credibility of the various witnesses.
Judgment of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered on 12th day of December 2012.
1. This is an application to amend grounds in relation to an application for judicial review in which leave was granted on the 20 th October, 2002 with the order amended on the 30 th October, 2002 adding a further ground. A statement of grounds of opposition was served herein dated 9 th February, 2004. This application therefore is made eight years and nine months later. I understand the substantive judicial review is now ready to proceed and may be heard within a matter of months.
2. The essence of the amended grounds are that because it appears from recent developments that certain gland tests have recently come to light suggesting the respondent knew at all times that the cattle in question had not tested positive for brucellosis, there thus was an element of mala fides on the part of the respondent. The principles applicable to an application to amend grounds are set out by Fennelly J. in Keegan v. Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission [2012] IESC 29. They may be summarised as follows:
(1) The Court should have regard to the interests of justice.
(2) The arguability of the points sought to be raised should be considered.
(3) There should be good reason for allowing the late amendment, e.g. circumstances should be exceptional.
(4) The Court should consider whether the facts are new facts that arose since leave was granted.
(5) The Court should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Habte v The Minister for Justice and Equality ; Habte v The Minister for Justice and Equality
...caselaw subsequent to Keegan. For example, the judgment of Hedigan J. in Fleury v. Minister for Agriculture Food and Rural Development [2012] IEHC 543 (Unreported, High Court, 12th December, 2012) purports at para. 2 to ‘ summarise’ Keegan in a series of numbered points, but a number of th......
-
Teresa Minogue as Personal Representative of Denis Minogue (Deceased) v Clare County Council
...that for example Hedigan J. was mistaken in referring in the judicial review context to “the overarching requirement of promptness” ( ( [2012] IEHC 543 Fleury v. Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Unreported, High Court, 12th December, 2012), para. 2(7)). Promptness, effic......
-
Carter v Minister for Education and Skills
...parties at the time, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hedigan J. in Fleury v. Minister for Agriculture Food and Rural Development [2012] IEHC 543 (Unreported, High Court, 12th December, 2012). At para. 2 of that decision, Hedigan J. assays to ‘ summarise’ Keegan in a series of numbere......
-
Y.B v Z.B
...proper provision as between these spouses. 37 . The husband relies generally on McG(P) v. F(A) [2000] IEHC 11 (Budd J.) and on AB v CD [2012] IEHC 543 (Abbot J.) as illustrating the broad nature of the “utility, purpose and function” of s.47. In McG(P) v. F(A) Budd J. remarks upon the wide ......