Judgment Title: Babington v Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform Ireland and the Attorney General
Neutral Citation:  IESC 65
Supreme Court Record Number: 116/2012
High Court Record Number: 2012 179 JR
Date of Delivery: 18/12/2012
Court: Supreme Court
Composition of Court: Fennelly J., Clarke J., MacMenamin J.
Judgment by: MacMenamin J.
Status of Judgment: Approved
Outcome: Allow in part
THE SUPREME COURT
RECORD NO. 2012/116
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND LAW REFORM, IRELAND AND ATTORNEY GENERAL
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice MacMenamin dated the 18th day of December 2012.
The order of the High Court had set out three grounds upon which the appellant was granted leave to apply for judicial review (grounds 2 – 4 below). This Court has permitted the appellant to add two further grounds (grounds 1 and 5). The amended grounds in full are:-
(2) An application for such leave shall be made by motion ex parte grounded upon—
(a) a notice in Form No. 13 in Appendix T…
It is wrong to indict any one legal representative for what is a widespread practice. What follows, therefore, should not be taken as a criticism confined to counsel in this case. However, the statement of grounds in this case, drafted on the 1st March, 2012, after the new rules had come into effect, illustrates the difficulties which have arisen. The applicant seeks relief under a total of nineteen headings, including certiorari, mandamus, declarations and injunctions. The grounds upon which the relief is sought number thirty four in total, and extend over some three and a half A4 pages. This practice, in the area of judicial review, could exasperate even the most tolerant of judges. A point actually reaching the requisite standard for a grant of leave can be lost in a fog of reformulations. It is hardly surprising here then that the learned High Court judge, entirely properly, sought to reformulate the grounds so as to render them more comprehensible and succinct. It is quite understandable when a statement of grounds is over-lengthy that points are missed. I would make the general comment that the word processor cannot be a substitute for thought.