Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Fleury -v- Minister for Agriculture & Ors [2012] IEHC 543 (12 December 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2012/H543.html
Cite as: [2012] IEHC 543
[New search] [Help]
Judgment Title: Fleury -v- Minister for Agriculture & Ors Neutral Citation: 2012 IEHC 543 High Court Record Number: 2003 744 JR Date of Delivery: 12/12/2012 Court: High Court Composition of Court: Judgment by: Hedigan J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation 2012 [IEHC] 543 THE HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW [2003 No. 744] BETWEEN JOHN FLEURY APPLICANT AND
THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT RESPONDENT AND
DISTRICT JUDGE MARY O’HALLORAN NOTICE PARTY Judgment of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered on 12th day of 2012. 1. This is an application to amend grounds in relation to an application for judicial review in which leave was granted on the 20th October, 2002 with the order amended on the 30th October, 2002 adding a further ground. A statement of grounds of opposition was served herein dated 9th February, 2004. This application therefore is made eight years and nine months later. I understand the substantive judicial review is now ready to proceed and may be heard within a matter of months. 2. The essence of the amended grounds are that because it appears from recent developments that certain gland tests have recently come to light suggesting the respondent knew at all times that the cattle in question had not tested positive for brucellosis, there thus was an element of mala fides on the part of the respondent. The principles applicable to an application to amend grounds are set out by Fennelly J. in Keegan v. Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission [2012] IESC 29. They may be summarised as follows:
(2) The arguability of the points sought to be raised should be considered. (3) There should be good reason for allowing the late amendment, e.g. circumstances should be exceptional. (4) The Court should consider whether the facts are new facts that arose since leave was granted. (5) The Court should consider whether the proposed amendment would be a significant enlargement of the proceedings already in being. (6) The Court should consider whether the proposed amendment would prejudice the respondent. (7) The Court should bear in mind the true nature of judicial review noting that the leave stage of judicial review is a filtering mechanism, the Court should consider the overarching requirement of promptness. (8) The relevance of the grounds should be considered. (9) Every case depends on its own facts. 4. There are twenty nine summons sought to be challenged in the substantive judicial review proceedings herein. They have been described by the applicant in his written submissions herein at paragraph 2.9 as follows;
(b) The three charges at paragraph 11(a) relate to legitimate movement within the same holding. (c) The three charges at paragraph 11(b) relate to moving animals out of the GVM mart controlled by Department of Agriculture officials. (d) The two charges at paragraph 11(c) relate to charges of possession of passports which were opened in the presence of Departmental officials. (e) The two charges at paragraph 11(d) and two charges at paragraph 11(e) relate to charges of possession of passports which were opened in the presence of Department officials. (f) The single charge at paragraph 11(f), the single charge at paragraph 11(g), the two charges at paragraph (h) and the three charges at paragraph (i) are all charges of failures to make entries in a herd register. 6. I fail to see how the interests of justice require these irrelevant matters to be raised. I doubt there could properly have formed admissible grounds in 2003, still less now. Insofar as they could raise any ground of mala fides, that can be dealt with by the trial Judge as a matter of weighing the evidence and credibility of the various witnesses. For these reasons also I fail to see how the new issue sought to be raised can rise to the level of an arguable point having regard to the furnishing of the gland tests in 2003 and their irrelevance to the charges faced. 7. It is clear that the introduction of the new claim would greatly enlarge the scope of the judicial review currently ready for full hearing. 8. For all the above reasons I refuse the application to amend the grounds as sought in the notice of motion herein.
|