Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
At the hearing of this Application the grounds principally advanced by Counsel for the Applicant as a basis for obtaining leave to seek Judicial Review were the reliefs sought at sub paras. (iv) and (i) in that order, of para. D of the Statement required to ground the Application for Judicial Review dated the 17 th September, 2004. These are as follows:-
A preliminary point was taken by Counsel for the Respondent and also by Counsel for the Notice Party, that there had been such delay on the part of the Applicant in making this Application, for which no satisfactory explanation and no objectively justifiable excuse were advanced in the Verifying Affidavit, that the Applicant was thereby debarred from obtaining relief by way of Judicial Review. Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State (Cussen) v. Brennan and Others [1981] I.R. 181 at 196, per Henchy, J.
The letter from the Tribunal to the Solicitors for the Applicant requested, "at your earliest convenience and certainly within the next seven days",
The outcome of such complaint or of any investigation instigated on foot of such complaint.
The Tribunal also wishes to obtain copies of all documents in your client's power, possession or procurement regarding the events surrounding the complaint, the complaint made, the steps taken to investigate such complaint and the outcome of such complaint."
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.