O'Reilly v Cassidy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Finlay C.J.,O'Flaherty J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1995
• Neutral Citation: 1995 WJSC-SC 1425
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1995

O'REILLY v. CASSIDY

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MARY O'REILLY

Applicant

AND

HIS HONOUR JUDGE JOHN CASSIDY THE CIRCUIT JUDGE OFTHE WESTERN CIRCUIT COUNTY OF GALWAY AND OTHERS

1995 WJSC-SC 1425

Finlay C.J.

O'Flaherty J.

Blayney J.

160/94

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

EVIDENCE

Quantum

Order - Review - Application - Applicant - Proofs - Arguable case only to be established - (160/94 - Supreme Court - 12/5/94)

|O'Reilly v. Cassidy|

JUDGE

Bias

Litigation - Party - Suggestion - Request - Trial of action by another judge - Suggestion rejected by trial judge - Reasonable person's apprehension of unfairness - Whether adjournment reason ably refused - Leave to apply for judicial review - Tests applicable - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 84, r. 20 - (160/94 - Supreme Court - 12/5/94) - [1995] 1 ILRM 306.

|O'Reilly v. Cassidy|

G7

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Leave to apply

Applicant - Proofs - Evidence - Quantum - Arguable case only to be established - (160/94 - Supreme Court - 12/5/94) [1995] 1 ILRM 306

|O'Reilly v. Cassidy|

PRACTICE

Adjournment

Discretion - Exercise - Refusal - Reasonableness - Short adjournment sought to inspect documents - Arguable case for judicial review - (160/94 - Supreme Court - 12/5/94) - [1995] 1 ILRM 306

|O'Reilly v. Cassidy|

Citations:

RSC O.84

G V DPP 1994 1 IR 374

O'CALLAGHAN V CLIFFORD & AG 1993 3 IR 603

R V SUSSEX JUSTICES EX PARTE MCCARTHY 1924 1 KB 256

1 Finlay C.J.delivered the 12th day of May, 1994.(BLAYNEYCONC)

2 This is an application pursuant to Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts brought by way of appeal, having been renewed from a refusal of the same application made by Mr. Justice Keane in the High Court on the 5th May, 1994.

3 The application is an application for liberty to issue judicial review proceedings for the purpose of quashing a decision of the Circuit Court in Galway which allowed objections upon appeal to the renewal of the Applicant's 7-day ordinary publican's licence for premises which are situated in Glenamaddy in the County of Galway.

4 The order made by the Circuit Court which is challenged or impugned is an order dated the 3rd of May, 1994. The history of the matter from the point of view of court orders is that the annual licensing sessions took place in Glenamaddy on the 10th September, 1993 when in the ordinary way the Applicant, Mrs. O'Reilly, applied for a renewal of her publican's 7-day licence. Notice of objection had been filed by the Superintendent and by a number of traders in the town basically upon the grounds that there was a lack of control and a failure to run the premises in an orderly and proper fashion. Those objections were heard at an adjourned holding of the annual licensing sessionsby Judge Brennan of the District Court and he, on the 8th October, 1993, disallowed each of the objections in two separate orders, that is to say the objection on behalf of the Garda Siochana lodged in the name of Superintendent Sugru and the objection on behalf of the traders lodged in a number of multiple names commencing with Mr. Garvey and having so disallowed these objections he made an order granting a renewal of thelicence.

5 That order was appealed to the Circuit Court and came before the Circuit Court for the first time on the 21st March, 1994 and evidence was taken on that day, led by the Superintendent of the Garda Siochana, from him and other members of the Garda Siochana. The matter was then adjourned and came for further hearing on the 3rd May, 1994 and after a hearing occurring on that day the Circuit Court judge, in an order which is dated the 3rd May, 1994 and which is entitled in the names of the traders and does not contain the name of the Superintendent, allowed the objections made by the traders and thereforerefused to grant the renewal of the licence. The application comes before this Court for liberty to issue judicial review proceedings. It is of importance to emphasise, as was recently emphasised in some detail by this Court in a reserved judgment in the case of G. .v.D.P.P., ( 4th December 1993 unreported) that what the Court has to consider in this context is this and no more than this. It has to consider whether there are any grounds which if the facts asserted on this ex parte application are found at a subsequent trial in the High Court to be accurate and well established and if there are submissions of law which if made pursuant to those facts are found by the High Court to be valid...