Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Enviromentalist faces €600,000 in legal fees...

  • 15-03-2006 3:08pm
    #1
    besty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,010 ✭✭✭


    So what does everyone make of the outcome to Mr. Salafia's case? I personally think it is unfair that he has to pay all the fees. The Judge said that he had to pay them all because:

    1. His challenge to the motorway wasn't in the public interest. (debatable)
    2. He should have challenged during the planning process. (fair enough)

    Here is a brief article on today's outcome;
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0315/salafiav.html

    Discuss.


Comments

  • #2
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,774 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Well, you could easily argue that the construction of the motorway is in the public interest. I mean, it just comes down to your political opinions ie a Green would vote one way, and a capitalist may vote another way. It's a tricky enough one to call, but I suppose more people would be in favour of relieving traffic congestion than saving the environment.

    In my opinion, the motorway probably shouldn't have been built there because it will detract from the heritage of the place. I would, however, be the first to concede that I'm sometimes excessively sentimental when it comes to Irish heritage thought. Mothaim go bfhuil an Ghaeilge ina gné tabhachtach don tsaol inniu - therefore, I must be a crackpot.


  • #3
    gilroyb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 595 ✭✭✭gilroyb


    I thought the judge put the two issues you outlined together, ie if he was taking the case in the public interest, he would have done it earlier in the planning process. The Judge seemed to decide that seeing as he was willing to wait so long to challenge that it was for a personal rather than public reason that the case was being brought.


  • #4
    Eru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    Its hardly fair that the respondant (who won the case) has to pay legal fees either is it?


  • #5
    besty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,010 ✭✭✭besty


    Karlitosway1978 wrote:
    Its hardly fair that the respondant (who won the case) has to pay legal fees either is it?
    No, but I think he took the case with honourable intentions. I believe that there would be sufficient support for his argument from the general public to warrant the case a fair review of the situation down in Tara. Then again, I know the courts don't operate in that manner.


  • #6
    Eru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    besty wrote:
    No, but I think he took the case with honourable intentions. I believe that there would be sufficient support for his argument from the general public to warrant the case a fair review of the situation down in Tara. Then again, I know the courts don't operate in that manner.

    I dont doubt his intention but the fact is he was found wrong and has to cover the expenses because there would be no expences without his actions, if that makes sense.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement