Healy v Fingal County Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 17 January 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] IEHC 197
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: No. 67/1996
• Date: 17 January 1997

[1997] IEHC 197

THE HIGH COURT

No. 67/1996

HEALY v. FINGAL CO COUNCIL

BETWEEN

DAVID HEALY

APPLICANT

AND

FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL

RESPONDENT

Citations:

LOCAL GOVT (DUBLIN) ACT 1993

BEIRNE V COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SIOCHANA 1993 ILRM 1

BROWNE V DUNDALK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL 1993 2 IR 512

MURPHY V TURFS CLUB 1989 IR 171

RSC O.84 r21(1)

Synopsis:

Judicial Review

Scope of judicial review - deduction of councillor's expenses by way of set off against debt to council - whether issue properly the subject matter of judicial review - delay - Held: Judicial review not available as private law matter - excessive delay in any event - (High Court: Barr J. - 17/01/1997)

|Healy v. Fingal County Council|

Mr. Justice Barr

1 The facts which have given rise to this application for judicial review are not in dispute and are as follows:-

2 The applicant, who resides in Howth, County Dublin is an elected councillor of the respondent local authority. The latter is one of two authorities which originally comprised Dublin County Council. They were created by the Local Government (Dublin) Act,1993and replace the former of which the applicant was then a councillor. Pursuant to the foregoing Act he was transferred to Fingal County Council with others associated with that area who had been Dublin county counsellors before its demise and sub-division. Debts owing by counsellors to Dublin County Council at that time were transferred to the respective new bodies to which the debtors had been assigned.

3 At all material times elected counsellors, such as the applicant, when members of the defunct Dublin County Council and subsequently the relevant replacement council, are and have been entitled to certain expenses and allowances in connection with their work as councillors. Such expenses are payable monthly by the local authority and presently each councillor is paid approximately £3,000 per annum in that regard.

4 The applicant and another councillor brought judicial review proceedings again Dublin County Council in 1992 relating to planning permission for a certain building development in Howth. The application was unsuccessful and costs were awarded against both applicants jointly and severally. Costs were taxed at £13,767.78. The certificate of taxation is dated 2nd March, 1994 and, save by way of set-off hereinafter referred to, the applicant has made no effort to discharge his indebtedness to the respondent for costs in the earlier proceedings.

5 By letter dated 24th August, 1994, the deputy manager of Fingal County Council wrote to the applicant in the following terms:-

"RE: HEALY AND O'NEILL -V- DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL THE HIGH COURT (JUDICIAL REVIEW) 1993 NO. 114 J.R."

6 RE: HOWTH HOUSE, HOWTH, COUNTY DUBLIN.

Dear Councillor Healy,

7 As you are aware, in this case costs were awarded to the County Council payable jointly and severally by yourself and Ms. Sadhba O'Neill. These costs were taxed at £13,767.78.

8 In March, 1994, the Law Agent wrote to your solicitor, Donal O'Reilly & Co. seeking payment. There has been no response to this request.

9 Accordingly, an order has been made that payment of allowances and expenses to you be withheld until such time as the costs due to the Council have been paid.

10 This order will be implemented with immediate effect.

Yours faithfully."

11 The...