Murphy v Corporation of Dublin

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1973
Date01 January 1973
Docket Number[1969. No. 538 P.]
CourtSupreme Court
(S.C.)
Murphy
and
Corporation of Dublin

Public interest - Minister of State certifying that production of particular document would be contrary to public policy and detrimental to public interest - Rules of Superior Courts, 1962 (S.I. No. 72 of 1962), Or. 31, rr.14, 15 - Housing Act, 1966 (No. 21), ss. 76, 109 and third schedule - Constitution of Ireland,1937, Articles 28, 34.

Certain lands of the plaintiff were situated within the functional area of the Council of the County of Dublin which was the planning authority for those lands. The Council refused to grant outline planning permission to the plaintiff for the development of those lands. Shortly afterwards the Corporation of Dublin, being the housing authority for an adjacent area, made a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition by the Corporation of the plaintiff's lands pursuant to ss. 76 and 109 of the Housing Act, 1966. The objections of the plaintiff and others were the subject of a public inquiry held by an inspector appointed by the second defendant, the Minister for Local Government. The inspector furnished a written report of the inquiry to the Minister who confirmed the purchase order. The plaintiff issued a plenary summons seeking a declaration that the purchase order was invalid. The Minister, having disclosed the existence of the report on a motion for discovery of documents, claimed to be entitled to withhold the report on the ground that its production was contrary to public policy and the public interest. At the hearing of an application by the plaintiff in the High Court for the production of the report, it was Held by Kenny J., in dismissing the application, 1, that the Minister had no absolute right to withhold the production of the report but that it was the function of the court to decide whether the document should be made available to the parties to the litigation, and for that purpose the Court had jurisdiction to require the production of the document for inspection by the Court. 2. If a Minister of State certifies that it would be against the public interest to disclose the contents of a specified document which he has considered, the Court should accept his view unless (a) it is shown not to have been formed in good faith or (b) it is one which no reasonable Minister could take or (c) it is based on a misunderstanding of the issues in the case in which production was sought. On appeal by the plaintiff it was Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Walsh...

To continue reading

Request your trial
150 cases
  • Haughey v Moriarty
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1999
    ... ... KEANE J ... MURPHY J ... 103/98 THE SUPREME COURT ... , the Allied Irish Bank in the Channel Islands, the Allied Irish Banks, Dame Street, Dublin, the Bank of Ireland (I.O.M.) Limited in the Isle of Man, the Irish Permanent Building Society, ... by Amiens Investments Limited, including a payment of £105,000 to Agricultural Credit Corporation to discbarge a debt owing by Mr. Charles Haughey to that organisation ... 191 25 ... ...
  • McM v The Manager of Trinity House
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 June 1995
    ...V GOV OF THE CURRAGH MILITARY DETENTION BARRACKS 1980 ILRM 242 PRISONS ACT 1972 S2(3) CONSTITUTION ART 42.5 MURPHY V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1972 IR 215 CARLTONA LTD V COMMISSIONERS OF WORKS 1943 2 AER 560 REIDY V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE UNREP O'HANLON 9.6.89 1989/8/2233 MINISTERS & SECRETARIES AC......
  • Attorney General v Hamilton
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1993
    ...as a necessary concomitant of cabinet government within the framework of the Constitution. Murphy v. Dublin CorporationIR [1972] I.R. 215 and Ambiorix Ltd. v. Minister for the EnvironmentIR[1992] 1 I.R. 277 distinguished. 6. That on analysis of the constitutional provisions dealing with the......
  • Application of Gallagher
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 6 September 1996
    ...found guilty but insane the Minister was exercising an executive function rather than a judicial power. Murphy v. Dublin CorporationIR [1972] I.R. 215 and Geraghty v. Minister for Local GovernmentIR [1976] I.R. 153 distinguished. 3. That the function of the Minister in adjudicating on an ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • The TD Case and Approaches to the Separation of Powers in Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 3-22, December 2022
    • 1 December 2022
    ...to Enforcement of Rights’ (2004) 7 Trinity C.L. Rev. 62, 74. 8 [1996] 3 IR 100. 9 [2001] 4 IR 259, [77]. 10 ibid [79]. 11 ibid [81]. 12 [1972] IR 215. IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL 12 executive power; he emphasises that judicial review permits the Courts to place limits on the exercise of ......
  • T.D. Re-Considered: Constructing A New Approach to Enforcement of Rights
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. VII-2004, January 2004
    • 1 January 2004
    ...4 0 Denham J. is of the view that without such a power the executive and legislature will be able to " [2001] 4 IR 259, at 333. '9 [1972] IR 215 41 [2001] 4 1R 259, at 368. T.D. Reconsidered ignore judicial declarations and be paramount over the judiciary. 41 The dichotomy is probably best ......
  • Truth To Be Told: Understanding Truth In The Age Of Post-Truth Politics
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 1-19, January 2019
    • 1 January 2019
    ...on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Little, Brown, and Company 1905). 57Murphy v Dublin Corporation [1972] IR 215 (SC). 58Article 28.4.3º of the Constitution. 59The relevant decisions are set out in ER v JR [1981] ILRM 125 (HC) and Johnston v Church of Scientol......
  • Abandoned To Principle: An Overview of the Law on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the UK and Ireland, and the Case for Reform
    • Ireland
    • Cork Online Law Review No. 12-2013, January 2013
    • 1 January 2013
    ...that there was doubt as to a legal justification for the DPP to issue such guidelines in the absence of an 52Murphy v Dublin Corporation [1972] IR 215, 234. 53See Mills v Shields (No 1) [1948] IR 367, where Fitzgibbon J refused to uphold an equitable bequest made in contemplation of suicide......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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