Patrick J. Kelly v The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for Finance, the Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,O'Donnell J.,MacMenamin J.,Dunne J.,Charleton J.
• Judgment Date: 04 October 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IESC 70
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 2021
• Docket Number: S: AP: IE: 2020: 000044

Between/

Patrick J. Kelly

Applicant/Appellant

and

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for Finance, the Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

[2021] IESC 70

Clarke C.J.

O'Donnell J.

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

S: AP: IE: 2020: 000044

AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH

THE SUPREME COURT

Ruling of the Court on Costs, delivered on the 4th day of October, 2021.

1 . The substance of this protracted litigation was concluded by the judgment of this Court on 30 ^th March, 2021 ( [2021] IESC 23, Unreported, Supreme Court, O'Donnell, McKechnie, MacMenamin, Charleton and Dunne JJ., 30 ^th March, 2021), and the subsequent order of 15 ^th April, 2021, ( [2021] IESC 28, Unreported, Supreme Court, 15th April, 2021) in which this Court made a limited declaration that the decision of the Government of 30 ^th September, 2009, to dismiss the applicant/appellant was tainted by objective bias. The Court also ordered that the appellant recover 50% of his costs, and directed a further hearing on the question of what, if any, further orders should be made consequent upon the judgment of the Court.

2 . Written submissions were exchanged by the parties and the issue listed for oral argument on 22 ^nd June, 2021. The positions of the respective parties were starkly opposed. The applicant/appellant maintained that he was entitled to an order of certiorari quashing his dismissal with a consequence that he would be deemed to have lawfully occupied the office of Harbour Master of Killybegs between the date of dismissal in September 2009, and the date of deemed retirement in 2016, and to recover pension thereafter. If necessary, the applicant/appellant sought an order from this Court directing payment of arrears of salary and pension, and continuing payment of the pension calculated on the basis of service until 2016.

3 . The respondents, for their part, maintained that the Court should make no further order at all and in particular, the Court should refrain from making an order of certiorari. However, if the Court considered such an order should be made, then the matter should be remitted to the Government to make a decision with effect from the date of 30 ^th September, 2009, as that is the date of the purported dismissal.

4 . The Court delivered its decision on 15 ^th September, 2021 ( [2020] IESC 62, Unreported, Supreme Court, (O'Donnell J, Clarke CJ and Dunne...