Keegan v Stardust Victims' Compensation Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice John Blayney |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1986 |
| Neutral Citation | 1986 WJSC-HC 861 |
| Docket Number | No.271SS/1986 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 31 July 1986 |
BETWEEN:
AND
1986 WJSC-HC 861
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Certiorari
Tribunal - Decisions - Error within jurisdiction - Deaths in dance-hall fire - Application for compensation - Applicant's two daughters killed in fire - Tribunal dismissed applicant's claims to compensation for nervous shock and to costs - Entitlement to costs dependent upon award of costs in event of an award of compensation accepted by applicant - Tribunal awarded compensation to mother of daughters for nervous shock - Held that any error involved in tribunal's refusal to award compensation to applicant father was made in the course of the exercise by the tribunal of its jurisdiction to determine his application - Held, accordingly, that certiorari did not lie - (1986/271 SS - Blayney J. - 31/7/86) - [1986] IR 642
|The State (Keegan & Lysaght) v. The Stardust Tribunal|
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Prohibition
Tribunal - Jurisdiction - Determination of claims to compensation - Solicitor applicant seeking to restrain tribunal from hearing specified claims - Applicant bemused by recent decision of tribunal - Applicant experiencing difficulty in advising his clients - Held that there were no grounds for preventing the exercise of the tribunal's jurisdiction - (1986/271 SS - Blayney J. - 31/7/86) -[1986] IR 642
|The State (Keegan & Lysaght) v. The Stardust Tribunal|
TRIBUNAL
Decision
Review - Certiorari - Error within jurisdiction - Deaths in dance-hall fire - Application for compensation - Applicant father's two daughters killed in fire - Tribunal dismissed applicant's claims to compensation for nervous shock and to costs - Entitlement to costs dependent upon award of costs in event of an award of compensation accepted by applicant - Tribunal awarded compensation to mother of daughters for nervous shock - Held that any error involved in tribunal's refusal to award compensation to applicant father was made in the course of the exercise by the tribunal of its jurisdiction to determine his application - Held, accordingly, that certiorari did not lie - (1986/271 SS - Blayney J. - 31/7/86) - [1986] IR 642
|The State (Keegan & Lysaght) v. The Stardust Tribunal|
Citations:
ABENGLEN PROPERTIES LTD, STATE V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1984 IR 381, 1982 ILRM 590
BRICE V BROWN 1984 1 AER 997
HAYES, STATE V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1982 ILRM 210
HEALY, STATE V O'DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325, 110 ILTR 9, 112 ILTR 37
MARTIN, R V MAHONEY 1910 2 IR 695
MCLOUGHLIN V O'BRIAN 1982 2 AER 982 1983 AC 410
O'DOWD & ORS V SECRETARY OF STATE 1982 NI 210
RACAL COMMUNICATIONS, IN RE 1981 AC 374
SHORT & MELLOR CROWN PRACTICE 2ED P252
SOUTH EAST ASIA FIREBRICK V NON METALLIC UNION 1981 AC 363
Judgment of Mr. Justice John Blayney delivered the 31st day of July 1986.
This is an application to make absolute two Conditional Orders granted to the Prosecutors on the 14th day of April 1986, the first being a Conditional Order of Certiorari to quash an Order made by the Respondent Tribunal (to which I shall refer throughout this judgment as "The Tribunal") refusing to make an award of compensation in favour of the first named Prosecutor John Keegan, and the second being a Conditional Order of Prohibition prohibiting the Tribunal from hearing the cases of certain applicants whose names are set out in the Schedule attached to the Conditional Order.
I will deal first with the Conditional Order of Certiorari. This was granted on the grounds set out in paragraph 15 of the Affidavit of Eoin J. Lysaght, that is to say, on the grounds that the Order of the Tribunal was made in excess of and without jurisdiction in that the only evidence verbal or written heard by the Tribunal clearly established that the Prosecutor, John Keega had suffered both injury and loss and was a victim within the terms of the scheme of compensation for personal injuries suffered at the Stardust, Artane, on the 14th February, 1981.
This scheme established the Tribunal. Clause 1 provides that the Tribunal will assess and the State will pay, ex gratia compensation in accordance with the scheme in respect of personal injury and loss which is attributable to the fire which occurred on the 14th February, 1981 at the Stardust, Artane, Dublin.
Clause 2 provides that the Tribunal will be entirely responsible for deciding in any particular case whether compensation is payable under the scheme, and, if so, the amount. There will be no appeal against or review of a final decision of the Tribunal.
Notwithstanding the latter provision in this Clause, it was conceded by Counsel for the Tribunal that were the Tribunal to act in excess of or without jurisdiction or were it to determine the matters arising under the scheme contrary to the principles of natural justice, its Order could and should be reviewed by the High Court on Certiorari. In the case of The State (Monica Hayes) v. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal 1982 I.L.R.M. 210 the scheme setting up the latter Tribunal contained a similar term, and Counsel for the Tribunal there made a similar concession and the present Chief Justice, then President of the High Court, held that it was properly made. I agree entirely with that ruling and I will follow it and hold that the concession in this case was properly made also.
Clause 3 of the scheme provides that the Tribunal will consider claims for the compensation made by or on behalf of inter alia "the persons who sustained the injury or loss (the victim)".
Under Clause 5 the compensation to be awarded (subject to certain qualifications which are not relevant) is to be on the basis of damages awarded under the Civil Liability Acts.
Clause 13 provides that proceedings before the Tribunal shall be informal and Clause 16 that they will be by way of presentation of his case by or on behalf of the applicant who will be entitled to call and question witnesses.
Finally, Clause 17 provides that where the award of the Tribunal is accepted, the State will pay such costs of legal representation before the Tribunal (including the costs of Counsel) as the Tribunal considers appropriate, together with the necessary and reasonable expenses of witnesses as assessed by the Tribunal.
The scheme contains numerous other provisions but the ones I have set out are the only provisions which it seems to me are relevant to the Prosecutors case.
The facts on which the claim of the Prosecutor, John Keegan, is based are as follows:
The Prosecutor John Keegan is aged 49 and is employed as a fitter's mate at Cadburys Ireland. Two of his daughters, Mary and Martina died in the Stardust fire, and a third, Antoinette, was very badly burned. The Prosecutor, on behalf of himself and the other dependants of the deceased, claimed compensation from the Tribunal in respect of the death of each of his two daughters, and separate awards were made in respect of each of them.
The Prosecutor and his wife then each brought claims seeking compensation for nervous shock. His wife was awarded £50,000. No award of compensation was made in favour of the Prosecutor, and no Order was made as to his costs of legal representation. It is this Order refusing...
To continue reading
Request your trial