Walsh v Irish Red Cross Society

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 07 March 1997
• Date: 07 March 1997
• Docket Number: [S.C. Nos. 158 and 162 of 1995]
• Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

[S.C. Nos. 158 and 162 of 1995]

Walsh v. Irish Red Cross Society

James Walsh

Applicant

and

The Irish Red Cross Society (Cumann Croise Deirge na hÉireann héireann)

Respondent

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Beirne v. Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [1993] I.L.R.M. 1; [1992] I.L.R.M. 699.

Clancy v. The I.R.F.U. [1995] 1 I.L.R.M. 193.

Geoghegan v. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland [1995] 3 I.R. 86

Murphy v. The Turf Club [1989] I.R. 171.

Judicial review - Availability of remedy - Public domain - Statutory bodies - Irish Red Cross Society - Disciplinary decision of respondent regarding its membership - Whether membership of respondent in the public domain - Whether membership of respondent a right conferred by statutory order - Whether such decisions of the respondent amenable to judicial review - Irish Red Cross Society Order, 1939 (S.R. & O. No. 206) - Red Cross Act, 1938 (No. 32) s. 1.

Judicial review - Ultra vires - Retrospective effect of disciplinary rule of respondent- Misconduct - Subsequent amendment of rule to provide for certain penalty - No provision for such penalty at time of such misconduct - Whether a person can be penalised for misconduct under a rule adopted subsequent to the misconduct.

Judicial review - Ultra vires - Immaterial considerations - Decision of respondent based on several grounds of complaint - Principal ground immaterial - Whether decision a nullity notwithstanding that decision is based on other material ground of complaint.

Appeal from the High Court.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Blayney J., infra.

On the 31st May, 1994, the High Court (Kinlen J.) granted leave to the applicant to apply by way of judicial review for certain orders ofcertiorari and declaratory relief.

The matter was heard by the High Court (Geoghegan J.) on the 17th and 18th January, 1995. By order dated the 24th March, 1995, the High Court quashed the decision of the of the Executive Committee of the respondent made on the 21st October, 1993, and the order of the Central Council confirming that decision. In addition, the Court declared that the amendment of r. 43 of the Central Council did not have retrospective effect and the respondent had no power to remove the applicant from membership for matters arising prior to the amendment of the rule on the 27th May, 1993.

On the 12th May, 1995, a stay on the order of the High Court was granted by the Supreme Court (O'Flaherty, Egan and Blayney JJ.), pursuant to notice of motion dated the 8th May, 1995.

By notice of appeal dated the 4th May, 1995, the respondent appealed to the Supreme Court.

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., O'Flaherty, Blayney, Denham and Barrington JJ.) on the 18th and 19th January, 1996.

The respondent was established by the Irish Red Cross Society Order, 1939, pursuant to s. 1 of the Red Cross Act, 1938. The Central Council of the respondent, adopted only one rule regarding membership known as r. 43, pursuant to the Order of 1939, which provided:—

". . . a member is any Irish citizen who expresses a wish to become a member of the Society and who has paid the appropriate fee."

On the 27th May, 1993, the Executive Committee of the Central Council of the respondent adopted an amended r. 43, as follows:—

"The Executive Committee of Central Council may, provided due cause is shown, decline to admit any person to membership, or remove any person from membership of the Society."

On the 21st October, 1993, the Executive Committee made a decision that the applicant be removed from membership principally on the grounds that he contributed to a damaging article which was published on the 26th May, 1993, in contravention of express instructions to the contrary and that he refused to reveal the source of a damaging allegation regarding a member of the respondent.

The applicant's appeal to the Central Council of the respondent against the committee's decision was dismissed.

The applicant instituted judicial review proceedings seeking various orders ofcertiorari and declaratory relief in respect of the decisions of the respondent. The High Court (Geoghegan J.) granted an order quashing the decisions which removed the applicant. In addition, the court declared that the amendment of r. 43 of the Central Council did not have retrospective effect and that the respondent had no power to remove the applicant from membership for matters arising prior to the amendment of the rule on the 27th May, 1993.

The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court claiming, inter alia, that the learned trial judge had misdirected himself in law in holding that decisions of the respondent were amenable to judicial review, that the respondent was not entitled to rely on r. 43 as amended, for the purpose of removing the applicant from membership and that the impugned decision was not justified by the refusal of the applicant to reveal the source of certain allegations, which refusal continued beyond the amendment of rule 43.

Held by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., O'Flaherty, Blayney, Denham and Barrington JJ.), in dismissing the appeal, 1, that...