State (Keegan & Lysaght) v Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1987 |
| Date | 01 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | [1986 No. 271 SS] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Tribunal established to award compensation to victims of fire - Claimant and his wife seeking compensation for nervous shock - Both claims arising out of similar circumstances - Tribunal awarding compensation to wife but not to claimant - Whether decision unreasonable or irrational - Test to be applied.Judicial review - Prohibition - Difficulties experienced by legal advisor in advising clients and obtaining medical reports - Order sought to prevent Tribunal hearing claims - Whether proper ground for issuing prohibition.
The respondent Tribunal was established by virtue of a scheme set up by the Government to award ex gratia compensation in respect of personal injury and loss attributable to a fire at the Stardust dancehall in Artane. County Dublin in 1981. The first prosecutor and his wife submitted claims to the Tribunal in respect of the deaths of two of their daughters in the fire (as dependants of those two people) and separate claims on their own behalf for damages for nervous shock suffered by them as a result of the deaths of their daughters and the serious injuries sustained by a third daughter in the fire. Neither the prosecutor nor his wife suffered any physical injuries in the fire. At the hearing of the claims it was agreed between the parties and accepted by the Tribunal that the nervous shock claims should be adjudicated upon in accordance with the principles enunciated by the House of Lords in McLoughlinv. O'BrianELR [1983] 1 A.C. 410. The first prosecutor's wife was awarded £50,000 by the Tribunal as compensation for nervous shock but the Tribunal refused to award the first prosecutor any such compensation and further refused to award him his costs of legal representation. The prosecutors obtained a conditional order of certiorari in the High Court quashing the decision of the Tribunal to refuse the first prosecutor compensation for nervous shock and his legal costs and also a conditional order of prohibition restraining the Tribunal from proceeding to deal with further claims being handled by the second prosecutor (the first prosecutor's solicitor) on the ground that as a result of the instant decision of the Tribunal he was having difficulty in advising his clients and obtaining medical reports. On the prosecutors' motion to make the conditional orders absolute notwithstanding cause shown it was argued on their behalf that the refusal by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v Governor of Portlaoise Prison
...decision maker had relevant material before him was neither proper nor appropriate. The State (Keegan) v. Stardust Compensation Tribunal [1986] I.R. 642 and O'Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanála[1993] 1 I.R. 39 distinguished. Obiter dictum: In circumstances where it was assumed that the prisoner's r......
-
Eircom Ltd v Commission for Communications Regulation
...ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES LTD v WEDNESBURY CORPORATION 1948 1 KB 223 KEEGAN, STATE v STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642 KIBERD & CAREY v HAMILTON 1992 2 IR 257 1992 ILRM 574 O'KEEFFE v BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39 1992 ILRM 237 AER RIANTA CPT v COMMISSIONER FOR......
-
Holland v Governor of Portlaois Prison
...(NO 2) 1997 2 IR 22 EAST DONEGAL CO-OPERATIVE LIVESTOCK MART LTD V AG 1970 IR 317 KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642 ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES LTD V WEDNESBURY CORP 1948 1 KB 223 COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS V MIN FOR CIVIL SERVICE 1985 AC 374 STATE......
-
White v Dublin City Council
...in the judgment of Henchy J, with which the majority of the Court agreed, in The State (Keegan) v Stardust Compensation Tribunal [1986] I.R. 642 at page658: "I would myself consider that the test of unreasonableness or irrationality in judicial review lies in considering whether the impugn......
-
Judicial Review: Setting Aside Decisions For 'Unreasonableness'
...and refined in tests set out in the respective Supreme Court decisions in The State (Keegan) v Stardust Compensation Tribunal [1986] I.R. 642 and O'Keeffe v An Bord Pleanala [1993] I.R. 39. In Ireland, therefore, the standard of review on the ground of unreasonableness is often referred to ......
-
Judicial Review of the Decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions
...in the performance of his statutory functions from the general constitutional 12 [2002] 3 IR 260, at 294. 13 [2002] 3 IR 260, at 276. 14 [1986] IR 642, at 658 [hereinafter State (Keegan) ]. 15 [2002] 3 IR 260, at 297. Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19 requirements of fairness and fair proc......
-
'Anxious Scrutiny' in the Irish Courts: Too Little, Too Late?
...to satisfy a court that the decision-making authority has acted irrationally … so 19 [2000] 1 WLR 1855. 20 [2000] 1 WLR 1855, 1867. 21 [1986] 1 IR 642. 22 [1986] 1 IR 642, 658. 23 [1993] 1 IR 39. 24 [1993] 1 IR 39, 71. O'Connell:Layout 1 28/05/2009 15:55 Page 79 ‘Anxious Scrutiny’ in the Ir......
-
The Focus of Ireland: Homelessness in the Courts - Fagan v Dublin City Council
...information available to the decision maker outside of the process, then it is lawfully made. he standard is one of unreasonableness. 15 [1986] IR 642. he principle espoused in this case states that the decision maker must not lagrantly reject or disregard fundamental reason or common sense......
-
Anisminic Error and Discretion in Judicial Review
...and, accordingly, 65 O’Keefe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 39 66 State (Keegan) v Stardust Victims’ Compensation Tribunal [1986] 1 I.R. 642 67 ibid, p. 649 68 ibid, p. 656 69 Farrell v Attorney General [1998] 1 I.R. 203 70 ibid, p. 229 71 Slatterys Limited v Commissioner of Valuation [20......