Written answers
Tuesday, 18 October 2022
Department of An Taoiseach
Judicial Reviews
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
151. To ask the Taoiseach the number of judicial reviews taken against his Department in the past ten years to date in 2022, in tabular form; the body and or person that initiated judicial review proceedings; the number of judicial reviews that remain open and or active; and the totality of costs incurred by his Department as a result of judicial reviews over that time period. [50767/22]
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My Department has identified the below four cases where leave was granted for a judicial review and where the Taoiseach is named as a respondent during the period in question, two have concluded and two remain active.
| Record Number | Parties | Status | Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 No. 547 JR | Ryanair DAC v an Taoiseach, Ireland and the Attorney General | Concluded | Costs were awarded against the applicant. |
| 2018 No 942 JR | Right to Know CLG v An Taoiseach and Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General | ongoing | * |
| 2018 No 855 JR | Right to Know CLG v An Taoiseach and Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General | ongoing | * |
| 2016 No 697 | Right to Know CLG v An Taoiseach and Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment | Concluded | €114,372 in legal costs were paid to the applicant by the Department. |
*Costs to be determined when the outcome of the case is known.
In addition to the above, the Department is also aware of one other judicial review proceeding where the Taoiseach is named as a respondent and which is currently with the courts, Murphy & Ors v an Taoiseach, Minister for Health, Minister for Finance, Ireland and the Attorney General, 2021 No 727 JR.
For completeness, the Department has sought confirmation from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor that there have been no judicial reviews taken in that period and will forward any additional information where it arises to the Deputy in due course.
No comments