No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Register Now
Friday, 14th November, 2025

Labour Court’s decisions on film industry employment law to be judicially reviewed as set aside applications refused

By: Decisis
The High Court refused applications to set aside leave for judicial review proceedings brought by two applicants challenging Labour Court decisions regarding their employment status in the film industry. The court held that the statutory appeal route to the High Court was not an adequate alternative remedy, as the Labour Court had failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decisions, undermining the effectiveness of the appeal process. The applicants were found to have an arguable case that the Labour Court erred in law by inadequately addressing the relationship between production workers, special purpose film companies, and the producer company. Costs of the motion were provisionally awarded to the applicants.

No order as to costs in judicial review after deportation proposal rescinded due to administrative error

By: Decisis
The High Court has declined to award costs to either party following judicial review proceedings brought by an applicant against a proposed deportation order that was later rescinded as an administrative error. The applicant, who held valid immigration permission, initiated proceedings after receiving notice of the proposal. The court found the proceedings were issued prematurely, as the error could have been corrected had the applicant more clearly highlighted his valid status to the Minister prior to litigation. However, recognising the respondent’s role in the error and subsequent delay in rescinding the proposal, the court also refused to award costs to the respondent, making no order as to costs.

Order for possession against mortgagor restored as High Court’s referral to plenary hearing overturned

By: Decisis
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the High Court's order that had adjourned an application by three financial institutions for possession of two mortgaged properties to a plenary hearing on six issues, and dismissed a cross-appeal by the borrower seeking to expand his defences. The Court found that the borrower was not a consumer, as his loan had a significant business purpose, and therefore consumer protection regulations did not apply. It held that the mortgage's terms meant the debt became due automatically upon default, without requiring a letter of demand, and that documentary evidence relied upon by the lenders was admissible under current legislation. The Court also determined that it was sufficient for the registered legal owner of the charge, rather than the beneficial owner, to seek possession, and rejected claims that regulatory authorisation defects or disputes over interest rate notification constituted credible defences. The case was remitted to the High Court only to decide whether the latest assignee, having been joined at appellate level, was legally entitled to possession on a summary basis. The lenders were provisionally awarded their costs.

The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.

Register Now