Kenny v Kelly

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Barron
Judgment Date27 July 1988
Neutral Citation1988 WJSC-HC 2472
Docket NumberJudicial Review No. 26 of 1988,[1988 No. 26 J.R.]
CourtHigh Court
Date27 July 1988
KENNY v. KELLY
ISABEL KENNY
APPLICANT

AND

JAMES KELLY
RESPONDENT

1988 WJSC-HC 2472

Judicial Review No. 26 of 1988

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

EVIDENCE

Estoppel

Promissory estoppel - University - Admittance - Initial choice - Choice changed - Acceptance of place at original college - Abandonment of first place and acceptance of place at second college Deferment of obligation to register and pay fees - Inferences from conduct of parties - The applicant girl, while still at school, applied in 1985 to the Central Applications Office for a place in on of the Irish universities and stated her first preference as being Trinity College Dublin and her second choice as being a place in University College Dublin - She then changed her mind and stated a preference for U.C.D. but was informed by the CAO that she could not alter her choice at that stage - The applicant later applied to the CAO and specified a place in the Arts Faculty at U.C.D. as her sole choice - The applicant accepted a place at T.C.D. but in March, 1986 the applicant discontinued her studies there and went to London - Th applicant discovered that students with fewer qualifying points than she had were offered places in the Arts Faculty of U.C.D. for the 1986/87 academic year - On 26/9/86 the applicant accepted an offer (made on 18/9) of a place in the Arts Faculty and she paid the required deposit to U.C.D. - On 30/9 the applicant's father called at the Admissions Office of U.C.D. and requested, on behalf of the applicant, the assistant in attendance at that office to grant the applicant a deferment, until the start of the next academic year, of her obligations to register and to pay the balance of her fees - assistant withdrew to another room and, after an interval, returned and informed the applicant's father that the applicant could have a deferment provided that the applicant wrote a letter to the office explaining her reasons for requesting the deferment - On 10/11 the applicant wrote to the said office and stated her reasons - By a letter written on 30/10/86 the principal of the Admissions Office at U.C.D. wrote to the applicant's father stating that the applicant had not been granted a deferment by U.C.D. and that information was confirmed to the applicant on 19/11/86 - The applicant brought proceedings in the High Court for judicial review and therein applied for a declaration that she was entitled to a place in the Arts Faculty of U.C.D. in 1987 - Held, in granting the declaration, that there had not been unreasonable delay by the applicant - Held that the respondent's point that the proceedings were not concerned with a matter of public law, being made for the first time at the hearing of the summons, was made too late in the proceedings since, if made earlier, the applicant could have obtaine an order continuing the proceedings as if they had been commenced by plenary summons - Held that the assistant in the respondent's office appeared to have misinterpreted his superior's instructions but ther had been no mistake between that assistant and the applicant's fathe - Held that the respondent was bound by the ostensible authority of the assistant who, having consulted his superior, granted the deferment sought by the applicant - Held that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought by her either on the basis of promissory estoppel or on the basis of simple contract since, if the deferment had not been granted, she could have concelled her acceptance and obtained a return of her deposit: ~Webb v. Ireland~ (Supreme Court - 16/12/87), ~Birmingham & District Land Co. v. Londo & North-Western Railway~ (1888) 40 Ch. D. 268 and ~Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd.~ [1947] K.B. 130, [1956] 1 All E.R. 256 considered - (1988/26 JR - Barron J. - 27/7/88) 1989 IR 457

|Kenny v. Kelly|

AGENCY

Agent

Authority - Conferment - Ostensible authority - Public office - Assistant in charge - Applicant requested assistant to make decision - Assistant conferred with immediate superior - Assistant returned to applicant and conveyed decision to applicant - Assistant misinterpreted instructions of superior and conveyed wrong decision to applicant - Assistant's superior bound by answer given to applicant - ~See~ Evidence, estoppel - (1988/26 JR - Barron J. - 27/7/88) 1989 IR 457

|Kenny v. Kelly|

UNIVERSITY

Admittance

Place - Acceptance - Payment of deposit - Deferment of registration and payment of balance of fees - Ostensible authority of agent - Promissory estoppel - ~See~ Evidence, estoppel - (1988/26 JR - Barron J. - 27/7/88) 1989 IR 457

|Kenny v. Kelly|

Citations:

RSC O.84 r26(6)

BIRMINGHAM & DISTRICT LAND CO V LONDON & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY 1888 40 CH 268

WEBB V AG 1987/8/2312

CENTRAL PROPERTY TRUST CO V HIGH TREES HOUSE LTD 1956 1 AER 256

1

Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrondelivered the 27th day of July 1988.

2

The Applicant sat her Leaving Certificate in 1985. She applied in the ordinary way to the Central Applications Office (C.A.O.) placing in order of priority several courses in Trinity College Dublin and ultimately the Arts course in University College Dublin. Sometime in August 1985 before her results had been obtained the Applicant decided that she would prefer to go to University College Dublin rather than to Trinity College Dublin. Her father made enquiries on her behalf to discover whether or not she could change at that stage but in accordance with the C.A.O rules found that she could not. She was offered a place that year in joint honours in Trinity College Dublin and accepted theplace.Probably because she had changed her mind about going to Trinity College Dublin she found that university life in that College did not suit her and did not do well at her studies. She made a further application to C.A.O for the 1986 year expressing as her sole choice Arts in University College Dublin. She gave up her course in Trinity College Dublin sometime in March 1986 and at the end of April moved to London where she obtained a flat and a job.

3

The first round of C.A.O offers for 1986 were published in the last days of August 1986. The Applicant did not receive any offer of a place on this round. Her results in her Leaving Certificate gave her 15 points for the purposes of entry to University College Dublin. Candidates with that number of points were offered places in University College Dublin in the Arts School on the first round. On the second round of offers that year students with 13 and 14 points were likewise offered places in Arts in University College Dublin. The Applicant did not receive any such offer even on the second round, notwithstanding that she had 15 points. The Applicant had apparently been watching the offers from the papers which she was able to obtain in London and after the second round offers had not included her application she telephoned her father and asked him to make enquiries as to why she had not been given an offer. Her father enquired in the Admissions Office in University College Dublin and was told that as his daughter was a transfer student she would not have been entitled to any offer until such time as the records of her course inTrinity College Dublin were supplied to them. Her father obtained these records and as a result the Applicant was offered a place in Arts in University College Dublin. This offer came on the 18th September and had to be accepted by the 25th September. With the consent of the College this offer was accepted a day late on the 26th of September 1986. Subsequently on either the 29th or the 30th of September the Applicant's father telephoned Miss O'Connor, the Senior Administrative Officer in the Admissions Office, seeking a deferral of her place on behalf of his daughter. He explained his daughter's reasons and the importance of an immediate decision. Miss O'Connor indicated that this could not be given on the "phone and that he would have to call to the office. He did so later in the same day. There is a dispute as to the result of his conversations with the officers in that office. He did not speak to Miss O'Connor but to one of her assistants. He explained the matter again to her fully. She in turn went in to see Miss O'Connor and when she came out she informed him that his daughter could have her deferral but that she would have to write in setting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • McStay v The Minister for Health and Children and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 June 2006
    ...MCKECHNIE 20.12.2002 2003/29/6875 DALY v MIN MARINE 2001 3 IR 513 R (HOWARD) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH 2003 QB 830 KENNY v KELLY 1988 IR 457 TRIATIC LTD v CORK CO COUNCIL UNREP LAFFOY 31.3.2006 2006/56/11924 DEVLIN v NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL UNREP HIGH COURT O DONOVAN 1.7.2004 20......
  • Healy v Ulster Bank Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 27 November 2020
    ...estoppel was formulated by Denning J. in Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130. In Kenny v. Kelly [1988] I.R. 457, Barron J. had regard to the High Trees formulation, stating at p. 463: “ In Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [194......
  • Moran v University of Salford
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 November 1993
    ...but, as the judgment records, no decided case was cited in support. The learned judge referred to a recent Irish report, Kenny v. Kelly [1988] I.R. 457, and he concluded "there must be, it seems, a pre-existing agreement prior to conduct which is said to found the estoppel. As I have found ......
  • Moran v University of Salford
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 November 1993
    ...but, as the judgment records, no decided case was cited in support. The learned judge referred to a recent Irish report, Kenny v. Kelly [1988] I.R. 457, and he concluded "there must be, it seems, a pre-existing agreement prior to conduct which is said to found the estoppel. As I have found ......
1 books & journal articles
  • Students as Litigants: a Public Law or a Private Law Issue?
    • Ireland
    • Hibernian Law Journal No. 14-2015, January 2015
    • 1 January 2015
    ...and A. O’Callaghan, “Education law update”, Solicitors Journal 25 February 2014, 30. Sometimes the line is blurred. In Kenny v Kelly [1988] I.R. 457 the applicant was accepted on a programme at UCD, but then sought to defer for a year. She was informally granted leave to do so, but on makin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT