The Applicants rely on Buckley v The Attorney General [1950] IR 67 better known as the Sinn Fein Funds case . In 1924 the honorary treasurers of the Sinn Fein organisation as trustees had in their hands a sum of money representing the central fund of that organisation. The Trustees were unable to determine who was entitled to the fund and lodged it in the High Court under the Trustee Act 1893. Proceedings were brought claiming a declaration as to the ownership of the funds and while the action was pending the Sinn Fein Funds Act 1947 was passed by the Oireachtas. By Section 10 it was provided that all further proceedings in the action should be stayed and that the High Court if an application were made ex parte on behalf of the Attorney General should dismiss the action and should dispose of the funds in the manner directed by the statute. On the Attorney General’s application ex parte to the High Court Gavan Duffy P. refused the application on the ground that the Court could not comply with the provisions of the Act without abdicating its proper jurisdiction in a cause of which it was duly seized.
On appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that in as much as the provisions of the Sinn Fein Funds Act 1947 were repugnant to the declaration contained in Article 43 of the Constitution as to the rights of private property they were ultra vires the powers of the Oireachtas. It was held further that Section 10 of the Act of 1947 was repugnant to the constitution as being an unwarrantable interference by the Oireachtas with the operations of the Courts in a purely judicial domain. Concluding the single judgment of the Supreme Court O’Byrne J said:-
The test laid down in Sinn Fein Funds would accordingly seem to be:-
Whether the substantial effect of the legislation or executive action is such that the justiciable controversy is determined by the legislator or executive and
Whether the Court is required or directed by the legislator or executive to dismiss the plaintiffs claim or appeal without any hearing and without forming any opinion as to the rights of the respective parties to the dispute.
The right to the appeal under consideration flows directly from the Constitution itself. Article 34.4.3 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, have appellate jurisdiction from all decisions of the High Court, and shall also have appellate jurisdiction from such decisions of other Courts as may be prescribed by law. No exception or regulation has been prescribed by law which is material to the instant case.
In my view one has only to look at the notice of appeal in the Humphrey case to find that the Sinn Fein Funds case test has not been met. The grounds relied upon in the said notice of appeal are the following:-
“That the Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in law and upon the evidence and upon the weight and balance of the evidence insofar as he found that the first and second named respondents had no power under Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended) to restrict the number of taxi licences to favour incumbents already holding taxi plates;
That the Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in law and upon the evidence and upon the weight and balance of the evidence in finding that the policy and principles of Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended) did not permit the imposition of quantitative restrictions on the number of licences of public service vehicles;
That the Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in law and upon the evidence and upon the weight and balance of the evidence in failing to consider and address the fact that the first and second named respondents had proper and due regard to the policy and principles of Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended) in regulating in respect of the issue of licences for public service vehicles. In particular, the Learned Trial Judge failed to weigh or properly weigh the evidence that the first and/or second named respondent had regard to the policies and principles of Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended) in introducing Statutory Instrument three of 2000 viz to provide for a speedy delivery of additional taxis in Dublin;
That the Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in law and in fact and on the evidence in determining whether the words ‘ control ’ and ‘ operation ’ in Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended) meant restriction viz. whether the said words gave a power to impose quantitative restrictions on the number of taxi licences issued and he erred insofar as he found that the said words did not provide for a power to impose quantitative restrictions;
That the Learned Trial Judge erred in fact and in law and misdirected himself on the evidence in accepting that the first and second named applicants, persons who had not applied for a taxi licence and/or would not be eligible to drive a taxi by reason of not holding a valid public service licence at the date of issue of the proceeding, had the necessary locus standi to challenge the Regulations made pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 and 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1916 (as amended).
The Appellants will rely on the fact that the judgment of the Learned Trial Judge is contradictory and unsatisfactory. In particular, the Learned Trial Judge contradicts himself by indicating that there is power to impose quantitative restrictions arising under Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended) whilst contradicting this statement elsewhere in the judgment by indicating that Section 82 does not provide a basis upon which the Minister can require local authorities to impose a quantitative restriction on the issuance of new taxi licences. The Learned Trial Judge was also contradictory and inconclusive in his treatment of the meanings of the words “ control ” and “ operation ” and he did not properly weigh the evidence adduced in this regard and misdirected himself in law and upon the facts;
The Appellants will further rely on the fact that the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact and on the evidence in that he had regard to matters of law and fact which were not opened to him during the course of the hearing and in respect of which the parties were not afforded an opportunity to make submissions contrary to basic fairness of procedures and the requirements that justice be administered in public in an independent, fair and impartial manner. In particular, the Appellants will rely on the fact that no party to the proceedings sought to rely on principles of discrimination contained in European Law and no submissions were invited regarding the case law of the European Court of Justice. Furthermore, no evidence was adduced at the hearing to suggest that any non-Irish European national was aggrieved by Statutory Instrument three of 2000 and certainly no challenge was brought on this basis. Insofar as the Learned Trial Judge relies on principles of discrimination for the purposes of his judgement, the said judgment is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable;
The trial of this action was unsatisfactory;
That the Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in law and upon the evidence and upon the weight and balance of the evidence in failing to consider or adequately consider the long standing regulatory framework which has been applied to the taxi industry and which has caused taxi drivers to act to their detriment in reliance on the said Regulations.
The Appellants appeal the judgment and Orders herein on the basis that the Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in law and on the facts in failing to find clearly that the first and/or second named Respondents have power pursuant to the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 - 1968 to make regulations in relation to the control and operation of the public service vehicles in Section 5 and 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended).
The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in law insofar as he found that Statutory Instrument three of 2000 was ultra vires the power of the Minister on the basis that there was no power by virtue of Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended) to restrict the number of taxi licences;
Insofar as the Appellants were a necessary party to the proceedings and applied to be joined as Notice Parties as a result of the granting of an Ex Parte Injunction to the Applicants herein restraining the respondents, in breach of contract, from issuing licences to taxi drivers who had applied for the said licences issued pursuant to Ministerial Regulation and had invested heavily in anticipation of the grant of a licence and whose interests were represented in these proceedings by the Appellants, the Learned Trial Judge erred in law in refusing to award the Appellants the costs of the proceedings;
Such further of other grounds as this Honourable Court may permit to be advanced at the hearing of this Appeal”.
It is clear from this that notwithstanding the repeal of SI number three of 2000 there is a great deal left for the Supreme Court to debate and rule upon. In no sense can it be said that the effect of the said repeal is to require the Supreme Court to dismiss the Applicants appeal without any hearing and without forming any opinion as to the rights of the respective parties to the dispute.
This does not however seem to me to be the end of this aspect of the case. SI number three of 2000 was quashed by Murphy J and that rendered it wholly null and void and of no effect. This would in the ordinary way remain the position until any reversal of the Learned Trial Judge took place in the Supreme Court if it ever did. There was no immediate purpose served by the Minister of State purporting to repeal it. A judicial quashing is not inferior to a Ministerial repeal. If the applicants are to succeed in ground number eleven in their grounds of appeal in the Humphrey case the normal consequence would be that SI number three of 2000 would revive by operation of law. The Ministerial repeal prevents that and in these circumstances I find it to be an unwarrantable interference arising in the unique circumstances of this case in the applicants appeal. Severability of legislation is dealt with in Maher -v- Attorney General [1973] I.R. 140 . At page 147 Fitzgerald C.J. said:-.
I find regulation SI number 367 of 2000 to be severable and quash Section 3 (1) (a) thereof as ultra vires the powers of the Minister of State on the grounds that it represents a gratuitous and unwarranted interference in the applicants appeal in the Humphrey case. The balance of the statutory instrument remains in full force and effect. S.I. Number 3 of 2000, while no longer repealed by the Minister of State, remains quashed by the Order of Murphy J.
While I have described the said repeal as an unwarranted interference with the Applicants appeal I accept that it was an innocent and not a malevolent one. The Minister of State was concerned that if the appeal succeeded there would be two regimes in place side by side and his repeal of SI three of 2000 was to guard against that situation. If that scenario arises the Minister of State may effect the repeal at that stage. It is argued that in the event of a successful appeal he will effect the repeal in any event. To that argument I say that we do not know when the appeal will be finally determined and there might then be a different taxi policy in operation and a different Minister. The Applicants are entitled to have their chance of restoring the instrument that they are seeking to defend without being ambushed at this stage in their pursuit of an appeal provided for directly in Article 34 of the Constitution.
S.I. number 367 of 2000 is next challenged on the basis that the State in introducing the same into law without compensation has mounted an unjust attack on the Applicants constitutionally protected rights in their taxi plates. Recent entrants into the taxi business have had to pay sums of typically £80,000.00 to purchase their taxi plates. This payment is made by an aspirant to enter the business to someone typically retiring from it for the purchase of the plate in which the law permits transferability. It is a matter of frustration and anger to the Applicants and their members that:-
former taxi owners have sold their plates for £80,000.00 and upwards, acquired for almost nothing a hackney licence and entered into competition with the taxi owners who have remained as such, and,
former taxi plate owners who sold out at a substantial windfall profit can now acquire a full taxi plate for a small consideration under the new regime prevailing.
The taxi plate is not accepted as collateral by the financial institutions and purchasers of same in recent years have had to use redundancy money or raise second mortgages on their own or relatives houses. In the case of some deceased members of the taxi trade income from the letting of plates to cosies was being used as a pension provision for widows.
The Applicants rely on Article 43 of the Constitution and Article 40:3:2.
Article 43 of the Constitution under the heading “ Private Property ” provides that:
Article 40:3:2 under the heading “ Personal Rights ” provides that:
The test as to whether constitutionally protected property rights have been the subject of an “unjust attack” was recently considered by Keane C.J. in Re Article 26 of the Constitution and Part V of the Planning and Development Bill, 1999 . Unreported, Supreme Court 28th August, 2000. In that case the Supreme Court was asked to pronounce on the constitutionality of part V of the Planning Bill, 1999, which allowed for a scheme of compensation providing an amount in compensation less than full market value to landowners.
He quoted from the judgment of Costello J. In Heaney v. Ireland 1994 3IR 593 :-
The Chief Justice then discussed the issue of compensation, observing at page 59 of the judgment:
However, the Chief Justice also went on hold, that there is no right to full compensation in all circumstances. Legitimate objectives of “ public interest ” may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value.
It is necessary first of all to examine the kind of property rights protected by these two Articles. It must be established there is a property right in a licence which is capable of being recognised at law.
Professor Kelly in his treatise on Constitutional law says:-
Thus, it is clear that it is possible to have property rights in a licence which attract constitutional protection. However, the extent of the right has been the subject of judicial consideration.
The nature of the property right enjoyed by the applicants in their licence was specifically addressed by Costello J. in Hempenstall v. Minister for the Environment 1994 2IR 20 . The facts of that case merit recitation in some detail in that they provide a ready analogy to the instant case.
The Applicants were also holders of taxi licences who claimed that certain regulations made by the Minister for the Environment under the Road Traffic Act, 1961 had had the effect of reducing the value of their taxi licences and that this constituted an unjust attack on their property rights. In the course of a review of the operation of taxi and hackney cab licences, the Minister made regulations in 1991 which placed a temporary moratorium on the issuing of hackney cab licences. After a further review the Minister lifted the moratorium by means of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 and it was these regulations which formed the subject matter of the judicial review in the case and which it was claimed constituted an unjust attack on the applicants’ property rights. It was claimed that the effect of the lifting of the moratorium on the issuing of the new hackney cab licences would be to severely reduce the value of their taxi licences.
Costello J. in rejecting the applicant’s arguments, primarily on the ground that no diminution in the value of their licences had actually occurred, made observations on the nature of the property right enjoyed by the applicants. He states at page 28 of his judgment that:
Thus the property right invoked by the Applicants in this case is one which, although recognised as a valuable property right, is also a right which is subject to an important qualification in that the licence is at all times subject to the conditions created by law. As Costello J. makes clear this is “ an inherent part of the property right in a licence ”
He examined more fully the issue of whether a change in the law can be said to have been an “ unjust attack ”:-
The Applicants submit that SI 367/2000 also constituted an unjust attack on their contractual right in that it is alleged SI 3/2000 created a contractual right to a new licence.
This argument, insofar as it relies upon the terms of the instrument, is misconceived. The terms of article 9 of SI 3/2000 are unambiguous:
The wording used in the statutory instrument clearly indicates that the only rights which accrued to the Applicants, upon application to the Corporation, were rights to receive an offer from the Corporation of a grant of the licence, not an immediate grant of a licence. Thus, no binding contract existed between the parties.
It remains to examine the property rights which the Applicants claim to enjoy in their licence pursuant to statute.
The Applicants seek to rely on cases such as Dreher v. Irish Land Commission 1984 ILRM 94, ESB v. Gormley 1985 IR 129, Blake v. Attorney General 1982 IR 117 and Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996, 1997 2 IR 321 in order to establish that the exigencies of the common good in this case, as envisaged by Article 43, are not such as to justify the measures taken by the Minister of State in SI 367 which have been introduced without any provision for compensation.
However, insofar as these cases do not concern property rights vested in an individual by virtue of a licence granted by law, they would appear to be irrelevant . The nature and extent of the property rights enjoyed by the Applicants in this case were described thus by Costello J. in Hempenstall:
The decision of Costello J. in Hempenstall, far from having no relevance to the factual scenario which presents itself in this case, clearly defines the scope of the property rights enjoyed by a holder of a taxi licence. In addition, it would appear to be on all fours with the facts of the instant case. The Applicants in Hempenstall also claimed that they had been subject to an unjust attack on their property rights as a result of a change in the law. The temporary nature of the moratorium does not seem to have been in any way central to Costello J. ‘s decision in this case.
The Applicants in this case accepted a similar restriction on the excerise of their property rights ab initio. They must have been aware of the risk inherent in the licence that legislative change might affect its value. Dramatic legislative changes had been introduced by means of Regulations in 1978 and 1995 and the Applicants were under no misapprehension that changes in the licensing scheme effected by means of Regulation could have a considerable impact on the value of their investment. Indeed, such conditions must be necessarily implied if the Minister of State is not to be unduly hampered in excerising his powers under statute in the public interest.
The Applicants in the instant case, as well as the applicants in Hempenstall , have in the past reaped the benefits of legislative change. It is not open to them to complain about such changes in the law having a detrimental effect on the value of their licences. It follows therefore that the actions of the Respondents in introducing a scheme of deregulation by means of SI 367 cannot constitute an unjust attack as this restriction is inherent in the very nature of a licence. As Costello J. stated in Hempenstall:
It remains to be examined whether the absence of any scheme of compensation, introduced in tandem with the scheme of deregulation, could be said to render the same unconstitutional.
The Chief Justice commented in Re Article 26 and Part V of the Planning and Development Bill that there was a general right to compensation.
With regard to the claim for compensation in the present case four comments can be made:
SI 367 of 2000 is challenged as being ultra vires and void for irrationality and flying in the face of reason and common sense. The Court in this case has exceptional material available to it for the purpose of considering this argument. The Regulation when enacted was the subject of a comprehensive statement by the Minister of State to Dail Eireann on the 21st of November, 2000. No issue was taken in these proceedings with the bona fides of the Minister’s reasons. In his statement the Minister said:-
I am unable to find in the foregoing that the Minister of State acted in an irrational manner or one which flies in the face of reason or common sense.
The courts when engaged in a judicial review proceeding examine the manner in which a decision is made rather than the substantive merits of the decision itself. It is only when the decision is manifestly unreasonable or irrational that they will seek to overturn it.
In terms of Irish law, The State (Keegan)-v-Stardust Victims’ Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642 marks the introduction of the concept of unreasonableness. Reliance was placed on the following passage of Lord Greene M.R. In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited-v-Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 :-
Henchy J. outlined the test thus at page 658:-
Finlay CJ’s Judgment in O’Keeffe-v-An Bord Pleanala [1993] I.R. 39 builds upon the principles outlined by Henchy J. In Keegan. It found that the Court could intervene to quash the decision of an administrative officer or tribunal on grounds of unreasonableness or irrationality in three sets of circumstances: (1) Where the decision was fundamentally at variance with reason and common sense, (2) Where it was indefensible for being in the teeth of plain reason and common sense; (3) Where the court was satisfied that the decision-maker had breached his obligation not to reject flagrantly or disregard fundamental reason or common sense in reaching his decision.
On the other hand, he also looked at those circumstances under which the court cannot intervene.
Counsel for the Applicant cited the following passage enunciated by Lord Greene M.R. in Wednesbury :
A further passage from Wednesbury is also instructive when it comes to considering how a public body should seek to exercise discretionary powers
The Applicants in the present case have drawn the Court’s attention to the fact that the departmental studies over the years have shown that deregulation of numbers is not an appropriate means of controlling and operating public service vehicles. It is fair to infer that these studies were taken on board by the Minister while adopting and maintaining the regulatory framework that existed over the years. However, when exercising a statutory discretion a public body is bound to consider circumstances as they exist at the time in which the decision is being made. As Barr J. said in Egan-v-Minister for Defence (Unreported, High Court, 24 November, 1988):
A public body is entitled to change its position where new factors or objective alterations in circumstances will justify it in doing so doing and this remains true even though the private citizen had a legitimate expectation that the public body would adhere to the previous practice. The increased demand for public service transport was the “ special circumstance ” entitling the Minister of State to reach his decision to change his previous policy. It is not within the Court’s remit to suggest alternative methods that the Minster of State might have adopted to meet this public interest. The one chosen, deregulation of the taxi trade cannot be said to “ fly in the face of fundamental reason ”. Beyond establishing this, the Court cannot go. The impugned statutory instrument passes the test of “ reasonableness ”. I do not take it into account but I cannot help but notice that during the currency of this case while taxi numbers have increased by well over 2,000 in Dublin taxi shortages and queues remain. This suggests to me that the defeatist tone of the hardship Affidavits filed on behalf of the Applicants may not be justified.
It remains to examine the arguments of the applicants in relation to:
In relation to the alleged lack of fairness in the manner in which the Respondents introduced the scheme of deregulation, the Applicants contend that the failure by the Respondents to consult them in the period immediately prior to the introduction of liberalisation, was contrary to the principles of natural and constitutional justice and the decision is consequently ultra vires , null and void. They claim that this omission on the behalf of the Respondents to consult the Applicants and invite their views on the decision to deregulate was compounded by the fact that the applicants themselves made a written request for information on the 17th November, 2000.
Whilst there can be no doubt as to the existence of a constitutionally protected right under Article 40:3 to fair procedures in decision-making, it has been recognised in the case-law that the principles of constitutional justice do not apply with equal force in every situation and indeed in some circumstances where decisions are taken by public bodies, such as a decision to enact a particular piece of legislation by the Oireachtas, the audi alteram partem rule or the duty to consult and hear submissions does not arise at all. The citizen is not consulted in relation to increased taxation in the budget. There may of course be various practices in place to consult interested bodies or persons before legislative decisions are taken, but this is undertaken as a matter of practice , not of law.
Thus, the requirements of constitutional justice are largely dictated by the circumstances and it must be emphasised that the right to fair procedures and, in particular, the right to be consulted which must be regarded as an aspect of the audi alteram partem rule is subject to the exigencies of pragmatism. This is particularly so in the context of the legislative process.
Legislative decisions, on grounds inter alia of practicability, have traditionally been taken not to attract the rules of constitutional justice - Bates -v- Lord Halisham [1972] 1 WLR 1373, Essex CC -v- Minister for Housing [1967] 66 LGR 23.
The rationale for this was stated by Hogan and Morgan in their work on administrative law as:-
This line of thinking was approved by McMahon J. In Cassidy -v- Minister for Industry and Commerce [1978] I.R. 297 at page 304:-
That case, of course, concerned secondary or delegated legislation in the context of the making of a statutory instrument fixing maximum prices for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The Court found that there was no obligation to consult the Vintners' Association before bringing the instrument into effect.
The case concerned a challenge taken by a number of taxi cab owners to a decision of Liverpool City Council to increase the numbers of hackney cabs operating in the city. At a public meeting with the council prior to the decision having been taken the chairman had given a public undertaking that the numbers of hackney cabs would not be increased until the proposed legislation, which included provisions for controlling private hire vehicles, had been enacted by Parliament.
The majority of the Court of Appeal held that on account of this public representation, the applicants were “justifiably aggrieved” by the council’s subsequent unfair conduct.
Lord Denning, however, although speaking obiter, seemed to go further and suggest that, even in the absence of such a public undertaking, the applicants would have had a right to be consulted. Per Denning MR:
Lord Roskill and Sir Gordon Willmer, on the other hand, laid emphasis solely on the unequivocal public undertaking given by the Respondents.
Sir Gordon Willmer similarly opined:
Thus, it would appear that the majority of the Court of Appeal reached their decision in favour of the Applicants in Liverpool Taxis largely on the basis of the explicit representation made to them by the Respondents on which they relied, i.e. on grounds of legitimate expectation. Indeed, this case has been cited in Ireland in several cases as an authority on legitimate expectation.
It is also clear that insofar as the Liverpool Taxis case can be said to have been a principle that there is a duty to consult, quite apart from any legitimate expectations that may have been created in the case, the case does not apply to the exercise of a legislative function. This is borne out by the dicta of Megarry J. in Bates-v-Lord Halisham [1972] 1 WLR 1373 at p.1378:
It is important to emphasise that this case concerns the exercise of the Minister’s discretionary powers under s.82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 to enact secondary legislation. This is of crucial importance when considering whether the rules of natural and constitutional justice import a duty to consult in the circumstances.
The Minister of State in introducing deregulation by means of SI 367/2000 was acting not in judicial or administrative capacity but in his capacity as a legislator, to make or refuse to make a statutory instrument under delegated legislative process.
The imposition of a duty to consult in the instant case would render the Minister’s task largely unworkable. An obligation to consult and hear submissions from every interested party would not only severely delay the legislative process, but it would also leave the instrument subsequently made open to challenge on the basis that the Minister of State failed to consult an “interested party”. In the case in hand in particular the category of interested persons is unlimited in that every member of the public may be said to have an interest in the efficient working of small public service vehicles. After SI 3/2000 had been declared unlawful in the Humphrey decision, swift action had to be taken by the State.
The Minister of State, in exercising his powers under the Act of 1961 to make statutory instrument was engaged in a legislative process and as such, his decision to deregulate the taxi industry does not attract the full rigours of natural and constitutional justice. Further, it would have been impractical to impose such an obligation in the circumstances. Accordingly, there was no duty to consult the holders of taxi drivers of their representative bodies prior to taking this decision.
Furthermore, I am satisfied from the evidence and material adduced on behalf of the Applicants by Mr. John Rogers S.C. that the Respondents were at all times kept fully informed of the applicants’ views on deregulation. This is a matter I am entitled to take account of in relation to the making or non-making of a discretionary order.
The Applicants are particularly aggrieved because they believe they had a legitimate expectation that the previous taxi plate regime would continue subject to gradual increases in the numbers of taxi plates. This they say arises from the authorities making taxi plates transferable on payment of fees, acquiescing in the growth and development of a secondary market and the taxation authorities levying capital gains and probate taxes on the values of taxi plates in the secondary market. They particularly rely on disputed assurances allegedly given by An Taoiseach to the Dublin Taxi Forum .
It is unnecessary in the instant case to establish whether representations had been made or assurances given to the Applicants on foot of which they formed the belief that the previous policy would not be altered. However, even in the event that such assurances had in fact been given, even by high-ranking members of the Executive, the nature of such assurances is such that they could only have been regarded as being conditional. Where a public interest emerges to make another policy the appropriate one to follow in the altered circumstances, the expectation that the beneficiary of the previous policy can legitimately expect is a procedural rather that a substantive one. As was stated by Keane J. (as he then was) in Pesca Valentia Limited -v- Minister for Fisheries [1990[ 2 I.R. 305 at 323
A public body is entitled to resile from its previous practice or representation where there actually exists in the particular case objective reasons which justify this change of position. A person or groups of persons who have benefited from a previous policy can legitimately make representations as to why the policy should not be changed. They cannot, however, legitimately expect to fetter the body’s statutory discretion to adopt a new policy in the public interest, as it is the public interest and not the private rights incidentally created that the public body must ultimately seek to vindicate.
I have quashed for the reasons given the repeal provision contained in S.I 376 of 2000. The balance of the Applicants’ claim is dismissed.