| Carlow Kilkenny Radio Ltd v Broadcasting Commision, [2003] IESC 200 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Ireland |
| Citation | Carlow Kilkenny Radio Ltd v Broadcasting Commision [2003] IESC 200 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Carlow Kilkenny Radio Ltd v Broadcasting Commission [2003] IEHC 45 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Murray J, Geoghegan J, Fennelly J |
| Case opinions | |
| The mere making of an unsubstantiated allegation would not entitle a party to discovery particularly in a judicial review application where the merits are not an issue. | |
| Keywords | |
Carlow Kilkenny Radio Ltd v Broadcasting Commision, [2003] IESC 200, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the making of an unsubstantiated claim did not give grounds for discovery, particularly in a judicial review application where the merits are not an issue.
Background
The applicants had applied for radio broadcasting licenses in two areas. The applicants noted that their station was successful with an average daily listener count of approximately 55,000. Upon being denied, they brought applications for judicial review of the respondents decision to award the licenses to another party on the grounds that those decisions were irrational. [1] Upon being given leave to seek a judicial review in the High Court, the applicants brought a motion on notice seeking discovery of various documents in relation to the decision of the awarding of the licenses. The High Court refused discovery of 11 of the 13 requested documents, noting that there was nothing irregular or irrational about the decision. [2] The applicants appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Holding of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in refusing access to the documents. The Court pointed out that there was nothing to indicate the improper holding of these documents, and the applicants had no grounds on which to request them. It was also pointed out that all documents of the decision are readily accessible from the respondents office and their website, and that the only documents not available are ones of a commercially sensitive and confidential nature. The Court also noted that a number of smaller issues presented by the applicants, including the supposed bias of Dr. Colm Kennedy, was not enough to warrant discovery. The Court noted that the Broadcasting Commission was entirely correct in how it handled the disclosure of the procedures it follows and providing the documentation they are required to produce.
See also
(Wikipedia will automatically generation references to any citation you have added to the article. You do not have to add 'references' as a separate section)
Add links to other relevant articles on Wikipedia
External links
Add links to relevant external sources.
In the external links section, include a stable link to the decision.
| example infobox (replace with your case details) | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Court | Supreme Court of Ireland |
| Citations | Attorney General v X [1992] IESC 1, [1992] 1 IR 1 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Finlay CJ, McCarthy J, O'Flatherty J, Egan J, Hederman J |
| Case opinions | |
| very brief summary. | |
| Keywords | |
| |
A Wikipedia article is written in a neutral point of view. Do not editorialize; you should support any claims by citing reputable sources. For an Irish Supreme Court case your article should consist of an accurate summary of the case including the background, the arguments in the case, and a clear explanation of the Court's decision and its significance.
----------------
Dowling v Minister for Justice, [2003] IESC 33; [2003] 2 IR 535, was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that being questioned by Gardaí while on temporary release does not amount to a breach of the good behavior requirement of temporary release.
Background (this is the 'heading' setting)
The applicant was a prisoner serving a life sentence and had been granted temporary release subject to his good behavior and signing on each month with the Governor of the prison. While on temporary release, he was arrested and questioned in relation to another serious crime, released without charge and returned to imprisonment following his questioning. He was told the reason for his temporary release being terminated was due to him being questioned for a serious crime.
Holding of the Supreme Court
This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.
Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.
Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.
Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.
See also
(Wikipedia will automatically generation references to any citation you have added to the article. You do not have to add 'references' as a separate section)
Add links to other relevant articles on Wikipedia
External links
Add links to relevant external sources.
In the external links section, include a stable link to the decision.