Irish Administrative Law .

Running head: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 1
Irish Administrative Law
Name
Institution

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2
Irish Administrative Law
Irish courts have reconciled the competing considerations of vindicating the rights of
individuals affected by governmental and administrative decisions but also respecting the powers
and functions conferred to these bodies at the same time. This has been made possible by setting
a number of principles of natural justice which form the basis of judicial review. A decision
would only be reviewed if it is proved that any of these principles is proved to have been
breached. Such are known as the grounds for judicial review. All judicial review cases in Ireland
are heard and conducted by the High Court. The grounds of judicial review that could be raised
in Irish courts to have the purported cancellation set aside as invalid are based on the doctrine of
administrative unreasonableness and have to be proven.
In assessing reasonableness of administrative decisions for cases which involve the
breach of fundamental rights, Irish courts take into consideration the proportionality of the
decision. Coming from the test laid down in the O'Keeffe case, Denham J stated that it was
important to expand the definition of unreasonableness of a decision. It is also inherent that
proportionality should be assessed.
The Principle of Curial Deference
Curial difference is an Irish style that was applied in the case of EMI Records (Ireland)
Ltd. v. The Data Protection Commissioner, [2012] IEHC 264 which makes the application of
judicial review restricted to specified occasions. Karole Ciddihy Justice stated that, “Only in
defined circumstances is judicial review of a decision-making process available. To extend
judicial review outside the proper boundaries of that remedy is to introduce uncertainty into the
interaction of judicial and administrative power...”1 Therefore, curial difference is a way in
which the court warn itself from interference. When a legislative body sets up a specialized
tribunal and equips it with broad powers plus a contractual clause, it informs the courts of its
intention of making decisions on its own. That the courts should not be involved because the
tribunal has a better understanding of their situation. In essence, courts are bound and cannot get
involved and review decisions where legislatures have shown an intention to make their own
decisions and no constitutional question arises
1 Ciddihy J. in EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd. v. The Data Protection Commissioner, [2012] IEHC 264

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 3
The Doctrine of Administrative Unreasonableness
The principle of curial deference can only be applied to the extent that it is consistent
with the set standards of reasonableness. The doctrine of administrative unreasonableness is the
basis under which Irish courts will get involved in a decision review process.
The Traditional Threshold
Decisions made by administrative bodes can be reviewed and set aside if they achieve the
unreasonableness standard. The classic articulation of what amounts to unreasonableness was set
out in the Associated Provincial Pictures Houses Ltd. case where it was stated by Lord Greene
M.R. that: “[t]he court is entitled to investigate the action of the [public body concerned] with a
view to seeing whether they have taken into account matters which they ought not to take into
account, or, conversely, have refused to take into account or neglected to take into account
matters which they ought to take into account.”2In other words, while determining whether the
tribunal, quasi-judicial organ or any other administrative body has acted reasonably, the courts
will consider whether such bodies have fulfilled the four corners of what is required of them.
The Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Analysis and the Doctrine of
Administrative Unreasonableness
The Meadows case became a landmark case in the question of administrative
unreasonableness as it expounded on the scope and application of the principle of administrative
unreasonableness. It came in place to negotiate the higher-threshold, bases of utter
unreasonableness or irrationality required to sort out administrative issues brought for reviw.3
The case involved a Nigerian-based citizen who sought asylum in Ireland. The grounds for her
move was that she was susceptible to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Nigeria. A
recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner stated that she should not be
declared as a refugee and upon appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the idea was upheld. She
then sought leave to remain on humanitarian grounds from the minister, stating that FGM was an
international human right violation of the freedom from torture and returning her back to her
2 Lord Greene M.R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223,
3 Edward Gleeson, Catherine Allen, James Bardon, Brian Horkan and Niall Michel (2012). Ireland: Judicial
Review: Setting Aside Decisions for "Unreasonableness". Accessed 10 Nov 2018
http://www.mondaq.com/ireland/x/176410/Constitutional+Administrative+Law/
Judicial+Review+Setting+Aside+Decisions+for+Unreasonableness