Help needed:O'Reilly v. Limerick Corporation [1989] I.L.R.M. 181

Lockstep

I'm trying to do research on the case and it's doing my head in,
I have to write a case note on it and so far, I've only been able to find any information on it from Westlaw, I found snippets of information elsewhere but I'm finding the Westlaw site heavy going and I'd like to have a couple of other resources to look back on.

Is there anyone out there who can offer any advice? I just started studying legal science so easy on the jargon,eh?

testicle

erm http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54278973

Rhonda9000

Lazy lazy

Lockstep

:P

yeah, I didn;t want to be accused of digging up a post that had moved to the third page,

I also didn't understand what the guy meant:(

johnnyskeleton

The plaintiffs were members of the traveller community living in unofficial halting sites. They wanted the corporation to provide them with better facilities, including sanitation. They sought a court order to compel the corpo to provide them with adequately serviced halting sites.

Their claim was based on the argument that the corpo had a duty to provide this under the Housing Act, 1966.

Judge Costello in the High Court dismissed their case, because he found that the Housing Act, 1966 does not impose this duty. Section 55 means that the act does apply to members of the travelling community, but the wording of Section 53 of the act provides (in plain language):

""It shall be the duty of a housing authority...at least once in every five years... to prepare and adopt a [building programme] setting out the works which they propose to undertake [regarding] the housing needs of their functional area".

Judge Costello found that the act imposes a duty to prepare and adopt a building programme, but does not impose a duty on them to carry out every aspect of that programme.If there was a special need for serviced sites then the corpo had a duty to include proposals to meet those needs if economically and geographically feasable and if it would not conflict with the corpo's other duties.

The corpo has a duty to review it's programme if new considerations arise.

The court also refused their claim for damages (which was, essentially, "it's the state's fault we live in squalor") but declared that the corpo must revise it's plan.


Hows that?

Lockstep

That is very good,thank you,
But I must ask:
is there any mention of the argument used by the defendant? I have been unable to find that anywehre

johnnyskeleton

The main argument was that the defendants were in breach of a statutory duty to provide a sufficient number of serviced halting sites for the needs of the plaintiffs.

They argued that a duty to provide serviced halting sites is to be found in sections 53, 55 & 60. This has to be inferred from the judge's express rejection of these arguments.

As regards damages, Costello J states:
"As I understand the plaintiffs' argument it is this. Each individual in society requires a certain minimum standard of basic material conditions to foster and protect his or her dignity and freedom as a human person; the right to be provided with these conditions is one of the unenumerated personal rights embraced by Article 40 (3) (2) of the Constitution; the State's duty to respect and as far as practicable to defend and vindicate this unenumerated right has been broken by permitting the plaintiffs to live in conditions without water and sanitary services, and the plaintiffs are entitled for damages for this breach. It is further submitted that damages can be claimed under Article 41 (2). By virtue of this sub-article the State is under a duty to protect the family in its Constitution and authority and it is urged that there is implied in this obligation a right that the State will provide to each family certain minimum standards of basic material conditions to sustain the Constitution and authority of the family, that each member of a family is entitled to the benefit of this right and that by permitting each of the families in which each of the plaintiffs are members to live in conditions without water and sanitary services the State has committed a wrong which entitles each plaintiff to recover damages."

Lockstep

Thanks, I have the plaintiffs argument,
do you know what the Limerick Corporation used as it;'s defence?

cycleoin

Jaysus man, why don't you just read the report, you have the citation!

Lockstep

I did, I couldn;t find any reference to the defence argument

Rhonda9000

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I did

Hmmmm ... did you - seriously?

johnnyskeleton

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Thanks, I have the plaintiffs argument,
do you know what the Limerick Corporation used as it;'s defence?

Sorry, didn't read your post.

They probably said "Aww come on, we don't have that kind of money. We're a local authority doing the best we can on limited resources. We have a plan in place, but we couldn't get it all done, we'll try again in 5 years time."

I don't have a copy of the ILRM report to hand, and I don't think the defendant's argument is in the actual judgment. It might have it in the report just after the headnote but before the judgment beings. It's probably very similar to the judge's reasons for dismissing the case.

Tom Young

This is written up in Kelly on The Constitution, as mentioned in the earlier thread. The Defense argument is also pretty clear. Might be worth getting a copy.

Lockstep

I dont mean to sound rude but what is kelly on the constitution?
Is it a book or what?
I searched but found nothing

Tom Young

Ah sorry, yes its a book. http://www.tottelpublishing.com/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/669

You'd get it in most college libraries and the section added by PA McDermott has the case you need mentioned in some detail.

Rhonda9000

.. and when you google "Kelly on the Constitution" it is all over the top results

Lockstep

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

.. and when you google "Kelly on the Constitution" it is all over the top results

I took Kelly on the Constitution to be an article, I didn't realize it'd be a book.

I found a copy today in the library

Thanks folks

Tom Young

I'd recommend buying a copy if you have FE's or King's Inns exams, its very good. Its the section that Paul Anthony McDermott wrote you'll be after, see also Pando v Fernandez.

There's a recent case in a judgment by Charleton J on non-justiciability called Dohery where the ECHR was also pleaded, see www.courts.ie

Charleton J held that
(emphasis added):-
I can find nothing in any other decision of the European Court of Human
Rights, or of the courts in the United Kingdom or here, which would establish
that the particular aspect of family life that requires to be respected in the
case of a member of the Irish Traveller Community demands the provision of
a new, centrally heated, plumbed caravan with electricity supply. On analysis
of the relevant case law under the European Convention of Human Rights,
my judgment is that the statutory entitlements of the applicants exceed any
benefit that might be available to them on the basis of an interpretation of
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I would add that the decisions to date show a reluctance to require State
authorities to intervene with forms of welfare as an aid to the exercise of
rights. Whether welfare is provided, and at what level, and in what particular
circumstances, is essentially a matter of political decision. The discourse of
politics in this area tends to move between the poles of urging self-reliance
and of offering cradle-to-grave support. Like a family, the resources of any
nation are limited and it is a matter for political and executive decision as to
what resources should be committed to what problems and with what priority.
A breach of legislation prescribing such an allocation, as in housing, calls for
judicial intervention. Where, however, a plea is made that the court should
declare the absence of welfare support to be wrong in a particular situation of
itself, the applicant should show a complete inability to exercise a human right
for his or her own means and a serious situation that has set the right at
nought with the prospect of serious long term harm. Any proposed
intervention by the court should take into account that it is the responsibility of
the legislature and executive to decide the allocation of resources and the
priorities applied by them.

Notably the judge held that had such rights been violated, T.D. would have
prevented a mandatory order, but a declaration of such violation could have been
made.

Noggle

Where can onefinda discussion on commutative justice & distributive justice.

Think Harris has a chapter on it in his book "Legal Philosophies"

nuac

Thanks TY for the reference to the Doherty case. Interesting.

nuac

Lockstep assuming you are studying law might I gently suggest that you start by reading some of the text books on the subject. Even if you cannot buy them, they are in the libraries - some of the main ones are in many county libraries' reference sections

YOu've gotta do your own reading, reading up on reported cases and making you own summaries and notes. A quck fix thru the internet to complete an essay may help you meet your deadline for now, but if you intend to make it your career you have to immerse yourself.

Tom Young and Johnny Skeleton were very helpful to you on this thread, and that is the tradition in law but you have to build up your own knowledge.

if you are studying Constitutional Law, you should have been told day one about Kelly.

I am at law 50 years approx and am still on a learning curve

Anyhow good luck with it

nuac

nuac wrote: »

Thanks TY for the reference to the Doherty case. Interesting.

Did you not notice this thread is 4 years old? This guy has probably graduated by now.

I missed it myself when I replied, I'm not being sarcastic.

Lockstep

This thread is 4 years old, I've graduated since then (with a 1:1)

This was for Irish Legal Systems, a course I did a year before we studied Constitutional Law.

nuac

oops didn't notice the date stamps. Congrats on your 1:1 Lockstep

Lockstep

nuac wrote: »

oops didn't notice the date stamps. Congrats on your 1:1 Lockstep

No worries/thanks!
Found law a mindmelter at first but soon stepped up to it. Completely forgot I'd ever even started this thread. Fairly baffling to read over when I couldn't even read a case note :P

johnnyskeleton

Lockstep wrote: »

This thread is 4 years old, I've graduated since then (with a 1:1)

This was for Irish Legal Systems, a course I did a year before we studied Constitutional Law.

Christ, time flies. Well done on the first, hope you cited skeleton and young on laws.

nuac

Skeleton and Young on Laws - or indeed on anything - now that would be a tome worth buying

Paczini

I know it's a really old thread but my question is really related to the topic. I am studying this case at the moment and I am asked to examine and evaluate the two conceptions of Separation of Powers by the Supreme Court in Ireland. Can anyone help?

Tom Young

Yes: Get the latest edition of JM Kelly on the Constitution - read it.

Paczini

I looked for this book it the library already. It's not there and I need to be able to discuss it by tomorrow morning, that's why I ask for help

Lockstep

Cringing so hard reading this thread. Still remember how utterly confused I was when approaching the subject (Irish Legal Systems)
The days where I didn't know Kelly on the Constitution...

Slyderx1

Paczini wrote: »

I know it's a really old thread but my question is really related to the topic. I am studying this case at the moment and I am asked to examine and evaluate the two conceptions of Separation of Powers by the Supreme Court in Ireland. Can anyone help?

conceptions? .......

Paczini

Slyderx1 wrote: »

conceptions? .......

I dont have a clue to be honest, there is nothing in mine or lecturer's notes about it

Lockstep

Paczini wrote: »

I looked for this book it the library already. It's not there and I need to be able to discuss it by tomorrow morning, that's why I ask for help

Are you in NUIM? As I did some research work in the library and they definitely had a copy.
It's a giant green tome of a thing, I'd be very surprised if a university didn't have at least one copy, given how important it is.

Paczini

Lockstep wrote: »

Are you in NUIM? As I did some research work in the library and they definitely had a copy.
It's a giant green tome of a thing, I'd be very surprised if a university didn't have at least one copy, given how important it is.

Yea Im im NUIM but I looked for that book 3 or 4 times already including this morning. Maybe someone keeps using it

Lockstep

Paczini wrote: »

Yea Im im NUIM but I looked for that book 3 or 4 times already including this morning. Maybe someone keeps using it

Did a search: they definetly have copies

Maybe ask a librarian to help you find one? Often they get moved around.

Paczini

Lockstep wrote: »

Did a search: they definetly have copies

Maybe ask a librarian to help you find one? Often they get moved around.

Thanks, I probably couldnt find it cause I didnt know it's proper name

Tom Young

Try WestLaw database.

Paul Anthony McDermott B.L. wrote the piece in Kelly and I suspect there may be a journal article on it that you could print off.