Search

This examination of this case from the perspectives afforded by State Papers in the respective National Archives shows the anger felt in British political and official circles reflected in its reaction, strategy and tactics. It illuminates the roles of the Commission of Human Rights in seeking to effect a friendly settlement. The case enabled Ireland at relatively little cost to do, and to be very visibly seen to be doing, something to help the Nationalist minority community in Northern Ireland, thus fulfilling a role as its protector and assuaging an outraged Irish public opinion, while furthering just governance in Northern Ireland and promoting unification by consent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the recent Irish High Court case of Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners and Others, a challenge to the constitutionality of the state's interpretation of the Irish Tax Code vis-a-vis the foreign marriage of a same-sex couple and their right to marry each other under Irish law. The right to marry and the nature of marriage are undefined in the Irish Constitution. Thus, a progressive interpretation may take into account contemporary knowledge of sexuality and sexual orientation and norms of equality and non-discrimination. This paper also discusses the 'living document' approach to constitutional interpretation and argues that the High Court misapplied the methodology of Supreme Court Justice Murray in Sinnott v. Minister for Education, a methodology which may offer the means to interpret the Irish Constitution as protecting the right to marry another person of the same sex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article profiles the Irish political philosopher, feminist and radical economist William Thompson from 1808 through 1834, including his estate in west Cork County, Ireland and his 1818 bankruptcy. An overview of the privateer, debt-collector and butter merchant Captain William Preston White's lawsuit of proprietor of the newspaper "Southern Reporter" Redmond O'Driscoll for an advertisement that Thompson issued in the paper is provided. Thompson's relations with his sisters are discussed.

The adversarial nature of medical negligence litigation is subject to frequent criticism by the media, patient advocates, and scholars. In Ireland, reform of the medical negligence dynamic is often mooted, particularly in response to the high financial costs of this type of litigation; however, change in this area has been slow. Recently, the Irish courts have dealt with a number of high-profile, medical negligence disputes, including claims for those affected by the CervicalCheck controversy, which involved the failure to disclose the results of a retrospective audit to women who had developed cervical cancer. These cases have again highlighted the shortcomings of an adversarial system. This article explores the limitations of the tort system in the context of plaintiff aims in medical negligence disputes, drawing on empirical findings (qualitative interviews with patient support groups and barristers), and the literature. In doing so, the article argues that while financial compensation is necessary and appropriate in cases of medical negligence, the current system fails to recognise the often emotional nature of these claims, and the wider needs and aims of litigants involved in these disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change litigation is a rapidly growing field in many countries and human rights obligations are increasingly an integral part of the equation. The Irish Supreme Court's 2020 judgment invalidating Ireland's National Mitigation Plan for transitioning to a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by 2050 has been widely praised by commentators. But the case warrants far more critical scrutiny. The Court's findings on standing to sue, the relevance of human rights provisions in this context, and the existence of a derived right to a healthy environment, are all retrogressive and augur badly for the future of rights-based climate change litigation in Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Who makes constitutional claims? This article argues that on both sides of the Atlantic a multiplicity of constitutional actors outside the courts participate in the elaboration of constitutional principles. I map out these constitutional actors by using as a case study the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. In all four country cases, there are common functional demands for democratic involvement in shaping constitutional meaning. Even though these demands may take various institutional and procedural forms owing to diverse political, institutional, and cultural contexts, I argue that the same overarching hydraulics effect is at play across jurisdictions. When social movements are shut out of one forum, they channel their constitutional claims through different institutional avenues. The four systems represent distinctive models of formal recognition of same-sex marriage, with different actors taking the lead and appearing to have the final say on this contested issue. However, I explain that in all four cases we can detect the voices of multiple actors, including, notably, the people themselves, in a process of legal contestation around the interpretation of fundamental constitutional principles. These voices can take different forms, and the article proposes institutional, historical, political, and cultural factors that may account for this. Thus, the article tells a story of legal development arising from inclusive interpretive communities in the context of a democratic constitutional theory. This framework facilitates dynamic constitutional interpretation that reflects evolving political and social demands instead of top-down delivery of constitutional meaning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses in the impact of the Irish court's move of using the European Union's Treaty rule to resolve the conflicts between national competition law and regulation pertaining to Panda waste in Ireland. It examines the importance of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisprudence in demonstrating domestic competition law outcomes and serving the interest of its member states. It outlines the background of the case, which reflects the decision of the two leading private collectors of household waste, Greenstar Ltd. and Nurendale Ltd., trading as Panda Waste Services (Panda). Further analysis of the court's decision in the case is provided.

The article discusses legal issues concerning the judgment issued by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Cartesio Oktató és Szolgàltató bt, a Hungarian limited partnership which aims to transfer its administrative seat from Baja, Hungary to Italy. The preliminary case raised by the Republic of Ireland which was rejected through the same ECJ judgment in Cartesio is described. The arguments raised by the ECJ concerning the European Community (EC) freedom of establishment are also addressed.

Commission of the European Communities v. lreland is important for it clarifies the division of areas of competences between the European Community (EC) and its Member States in the mixed agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention). According to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, a finding that there has been a transfer to the Community of areas of shared competence is contingent on the existence of Community rules within the areas covered by the mixed agreement provisions in issue, even though these rules establish only minimum standards. Thus, when dealing with the LOS Convention disputes involving EC Member States, the court or tribunal needs to establish that the shared competence in question has not been transferred to the Community. Otherwise, it should decline jurisdiction on the basis that the parties or party lack(s) locus standi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Supreme Court ruling which clears the Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU) from the abuse of dominance case filed by the Competition Authority in Ireland. Allegedly, the ILCU abuses its dominant position in the market by limiting access to savings protection services (SPS) and by requiring its members to purchase credit union representation services from ILCU. However, the Competition Authority failed to present evidence to support their contention on SPS.

The article discusses the November 9, 2006 judgment in Case C-216/05, Commission v. Ireland, which was heard in the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The issues are the amount of discretion a Member State should have in determining public participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) directive and the right of Member States to levy administrative fees. The decision in Article 226 EC proceedings against Ireland found that there was not a breach in Articles 6 or 8 and the ECJ sanctioned participation fees. Legal interpretation of various statutes include Article 249(3) and Article 6(3).

Recent studies of the class action device have prompted legal commentators to turn their attention to the crucial issue of whether this device should be introduced in England and Ireland and, if so, what features this device should possess. The aim of this article is to contribute to this debate by providing an analysis of the Australian experience with one of the most crucial aspects of this device, namely, the settlement of class proceedings. The United States jurisprudence on class action settlements is also extensively referred to. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]