Apr 2024 ADMIN LAW Flashcards

1
Q

1 Administrative law is restricted to the law regarding:

A Relations between individuals and state authorities, administrative bodies or tribunals
B Actions of any servant of government with legal justification
C Procedural, not substantive administrative issues
D All of the above.

A

D All of the above.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

The public element is assessed with regard to:

A	The source of the power being invoked
B	The nature of the power being invoked
C	Both of the above
D	Neither of the above
A

C Both of the above

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

3 In Beirne v. Commissioner of An Garda Siochána, a private contract was:

A	Subject to judicial review
B	Not subject to JR as was a private issue not of public concern
C	Not subject to JR as Gardai have power to enter into private contracts
D	Not subject to JR as employment contracts are strictly private law
A

A Subject to judicial review

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

4 In Geoghegan v. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, Denham J laid out criteria, which were later adapted by Shanley J in Eoghan v. UCD, for assessing if a matter should be subject to JR. These included:

	i	Whether powers are pursuant to statute
	ii	Whether powers depend on legislative/governmental approval			
	iii	Whether matter is of particular and immediate public concern
A	i + iii
B	ii + iii
C	i + ii
D	i, ii + iii
A

D i, ii + iii

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

5 According to State (Crothers) v. Kelly, where a decision would have been the same regardless that there was a breach of fair procedures, it will:

A	Stand as the costs and time wasted would make a JR unjustifiable
B	Stand as the JR would not change the decision
C	Be quashed as the Court is not concerned with changing decision, just with upholding principles
D	Be quashed as fair procedures are of paramount consideration
A

D Be quashed as fair procedures are of paramount consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

6 The Supreme Court required that ‘a person be furnished with a copy of the evidence reflecting on his good name, be allowed to cross-examine, be allowed to give rebuttal evidence, and be permitted to address his accusers in his own defence’ in the case of

A	Flanagan v. UCD [1988] IR 724
B	Eoghan v. UCD [1996] 1 IR 390
C	Re Haughey [1971] IR 217
D	State (Crothers) v. Kelly 1978 ILRM 167
A

C Re Haughey [1971] IR 217

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

7 The following will have a bearing on whether or not there needs to be a broad range of procedural safeguards in place for decision-makers:

A	Whether a person’s good name is impugned
B	Whether their livelihood or property rights are endangered
C	Neither of the above
D	Both of the above
A

D Both of the above

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

8 The minimum requirements of a decision are:

A	Opportunity to have representation
B	Opportunity to challenge the evidence by cross-examination
C	Opportunity to address the decision makers, and to present a rebuttal
D	Opportunity to receive notice of decision, to respond
A

D Opportunity to receive notice of decision, to respond

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

9 The right to legal representation is not absolute, except in cases of:

A	A charge of plagiarism (Flanagan v. UCD)
B	Pupil suspension (State (Smullen) v. Duffy)
C	Disciplinary charge for Governor (State v. Governor of Portlaoise)
D	None of the above
A

A A charge of plagiarism (Flanagan v. UCD)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

10 The obligation to give reasons for an administrative decision is absolute:

A	According to State (Creedon) v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Trib
B	According to International Fishing Vessels v. Minister for Marine
C	According to neither of the above
D	It is not absolute according to McCormack v. Garda Complaints Board
A

D It is not absolute according to McCormack v. Garda Complaints Board

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

11 The principle of nemo iudex in causa sua, enshrined in the field of judicial review, is particularly relevant with regard to:

A	The rule against bias
B	The scope of a judge’s jurisdiction
C	The scope of a judge’s ability to look behind the meaning of a statute
D	The doctrine of administrative unreasonableness
A

A The rule against bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

12 According to Orange v. Director of Telecommunication Regulation, bias is evidenced by:

A	Proved, actual bias
B	Presumed personal bias, where a personal interest is shown to exist
C	Apparent bias where a reasonable person might presume a bias
D	All of the above
A

D All of the above

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

13 If there is a relationship with one of the parties and the decision maker:

A	It is irrelevant, unless it relates specifically to the issue at hand
B	Then that is a prima facie ground for a JR
C	Then it is a matter for the decision maker to assess by themselves
D	It is only relevant if the relationship is objected to
A

D It is only relevant if the relationship is objected to

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

14 A prior connection of legal advisor and client is:

A	Sufficient for a declaration of objective bias
B	Insufficient to be called bias, it must be a long, recent & varied link
C	Insufficient for a declaration of subjective bias
D	Insufficient for a declaration of objective bias
A

B Insufficient to be called bias, it must be a long, recent & varied link

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

15 Bodies exercising an administrative function:

A	May not decide a matter in which they have an interest
B	May decide matters in which they have an interest
C	May decide matters, but only if they act fairly and properly
D	May decide matters, but only if impartial observers involved
A

C May decide matters, but only if they act fairly and properly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

16 The existence of alternative machinery to decide an issue is:

A	Important, but not critical in deciding if JR is an appropriate remedy
B	Critical
C	Of note, but not of the highest priority
D	Not important
A

A Important, but not critical in deciding if JR is an appropriate remedy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

17 The course of the hearing will be affected by the conduct of the decision-maker, and such conduct will be subject to scrutiny where it ‘gives rise in the mind of an unprejudiced observer to the suspicion that justice was not being done’ according to:

A	State (Hegarty) v. Winters
B	Flanagan v. UCD
C	McGrath v. Trustees of Maynooth College
D	O’Brien v. Bord na Mona
A

A State (Hegarty) v. Winters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

18 Ultra vires decisions, or those made without/in excess of jurisdiction:

A	Are paramount to the doctrine of administrative unreasonableness
B	Are subjugated to the doctrine of administrative unreasonableness
C	Were still capable of being upheld in State (Walshe) v. Murphy
D	All of the above
A

A Are paramount to the doctrine of administrative unreasonableness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

19 The interpretation of a legal definition to a particular set of facts is:

A	A matter for the decision maker & is thus a question of fact, subject to JR
B	Not a matter for the decision maker, is a question of law & is subject to JR
C	A matter for the courts, and is subject to JR
D	A matter for the courts, not subject to JR
A

B Not a matter for the decision maker, is a question of law & is subject to JR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

20 In Shannon Regional Fisheries Board v. An Bord Pleanála, the High Court stated that if a decision would always be allowed to stand if it was:

A	Rational, in light of the facts
B	Material to the facts
C	Reasonable, in light of the facts
D	All of the above
A

C Reasonable, in light of the facts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

21 The House of Lords case of Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission is authority for the proposition that:

A	Errors of law not on the face of the record are subject to JR
B	Administrative decisions based on legal error are in excess of jurisdiction
C	Errors of law are made in the absence of jurisdiction
D	All of the above
A

A Errors of law not on the face of the record are subject to JR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

22 The Irish Courts have adopted Anisminic in:

A	Stating that only errors of law on the face of the record are subject to JR
B	Stating that errors of law not on the face of the record are subject to JR
C	Stating that errors of law are made only where there is jurisdiction to do so
D	They have not adopted it, preferring to assess on the basis of jurisdiction
A

D They have not adopted it, preferring to assess on the basis of jurisdiction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

23 Errors within jurisdiction, i.e. where the body has misdirected itself as to the matters which can be taken into account when making its decision:

A	Will cause a decision to be set aside
B	Will cause to be set aside only where error not recorded on face of record
C	Will cause to be set aside only when in planning and development law
D	Will not cause to be set aside even if not recorded on face of record
A

B Will cause to be set aside only where error not recorded on face of record

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

24 Killeen v. DPP decided that a District Court Judge was:

A	Entitled to consider circumstances outside the error in the warrant in 			refusing to send the defendants forward for trial
B	Not entitled to do so
C	Obliged to do so
D	Entitled to do so only where the defendants so applied
A

B Not entitled to do so

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

25 State (Holland) v. Kennedy stated that a District Court Judge, having jurisdiction, could lose that jurisdiction by:

A	Falling into unconstitutionality
B	Breaching principles of natural justice
C	Breaching the bounds of that jurisdiction statute conferred upon him
D	All of the above
A

D All of the above

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

26 An error of fact is one made within jurisdiction:

A	But is nevertheless susceptible to JR
B	Is not susceptible to JR
C	Is susceptible to JR only in circumstances where it is unreasonable
D	None of the above
A

B Is not susceptible to JR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

27 A.B. v. Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform is authority for the proposition that:

A	An error of fact producing an error of law is nonetheless not subject to JR
B	An error of fact producing an error of law is a misnomer
C	A fundamental error of fact producing an error of law is subject to JR  (“where the mistake of fact is so basic that it deprives adjudicator of jurisdiction”)
D	An error of fact is not a mistake of the decision-maker, & not subject to JR
A

C A fundamental error of fact producing an error of law is subject to JR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

28 The doctrine of administrative unreasonableness is particularly important in:

A	The field of planning and development
B	The field of immigration and asylum
C	Both of the above
D	Neither of the 	above
A

A The field of planning and development

29
Q

29 The doctrine of administrative unreasonableness (which is deemed a restrictive doctrine) has relevance:

A	Where unreasonableness is most evident in the decision
B	Where a decision is made within jurisdiction, but unreasonably
C	As an exceptional jurisdiction for the High Court’s JR power.
D	All of the above
A

C As an exceptional jurisdiction for the High Court’s JR power.

30
Q

30 In State (Keegan) v. Stardust Compensation Tribunal Henchy J gave:

A	Extended powers to the High Court to allow JR
B	Reduced powers to the High Court to allow JR
C	Extended leeway to decision-makers in relation to unreasonableness
D	Reduced leeway to decision-makers in relation to unreasonableness
A

C Extended leeway to decision-makers in relation to unreasonableness

31
Q

31 Unreasonableness is argued along with:

A	Lack of jurisdiction, or a breach of fair procedures
B	Lack of jurisdiction, breach of fair procedures or an error of law
C	Lack of jurisdiction, breach of fair procedures, or bad faith/bias
D	Lack of jurisdiction, breach of fair procedures, an error of law or bias
A

C Lack of jurisdiction, breach of fair procedures, or bad faith/bias

32
Q

32 In O’Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanála, the Supreme Court stated that:

A	The High Court could intervene where illegality was found
B	The High Court could intervene where materially unsupported decision 			made (not on the merits)
C	Both of the above
D	The High Court can only intervene on the basis of unreasonableness
A

B The High Court could intervene where materially unsupported decision made (not on the merits)

33
Q

33 The leeway in O’Keeffe is deemed:

A	Appropriate for all areas of Irish administrative law
B	Inappropriate for cases involving human rights and refugees
C	Inappropriate for cases involving planning and development issues
D	Inappropriate since it has been overruled in Lobe v. Minister for Justice
A

B Inappropriate for cases involving human rights and refugees

34
Q

34 The remedies available in Judicial Review are set out in Order 84 r18. These are:

A	Certiorari, mandamus and prohibition
B	Certiorari, mandamus, injunction and declaration
C	Certiorari, mandamus, injunction, declaration, quo warranto & prohibition
D	Certiorari, mandamus, injunction, declaration and damages
A

C Certiorari, mandamus, injunction, declaration, quo warranto & prohibition

35
Q

35 A claim for damages is made under O84 r 24(1) where:

A	The court finds there has been damage quantifiable in money terms
B	The court finds that the applicant would have been awarded damages
C	There is a claim for damages, & the court is satisfied they would have 			been awarded in a civil action
D	All of the above
A

C There is a claim for damages, & the court is satisfied they would have been awarded in a civil action

36
Q

36 What Order sets out the leave requirement in Judicial Review proceedings:

A. Order 84;
B. Order 84 Rule 12;
C. Order 84, Rule 20; or
D. Order 84, Rule 22.

A

C. Order 84, Rule 20;

37
Q

37 Judicial Review operates as a two-stage process. Which of the following correctly states what that process is:

a. Seek leave to apply for Judicial Review and then conduct the substantive hearing on the matter;
b. seek leave to apply for Judicial Review and if this is granted then the substantive hearing of the matter will occur;
c. seek leave to apply for Judicial Review, and if this is not granted appeal the decision; or
d. none of the above.

A

b. seek leave to apply for Judicial Review and if this is granted then the substantive hearing of the matter will occur;

38
Q

38 The seminal case of G –v- DPP established the following four criteria which must be fulfilled before someone can bring a judicial review case. Firstly, it must be established that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter; secondly, it must be established the facts are su**fficient to support a stateable ground for the **form of relief sought; thirdly, that there is an arguable case in law; and fourthly, that judicial review is the only effective remedy or the most appropriate remedy. Which of the following is the fifth criteria:

a. That the applicant can give an undertaking as to costs if his application proves to be unsuccessful under Order 84, rule 21(1);
b. That there is a bona fide chance that the applicant will be successful in the substantive hearing of the matter under Order 84, rule 21(1);
c. That the application has been made immediately upon receipt of the decision sought to be Judicially reviewed under Order 84, rule 21(1); or
d. That the application has been made promptly or in any event within the three months or six months time limits under Order 84, rule 21(1).

A

d. That the application has been made promptly or in any event within the three months or six months time limits under Order 84, rule 21(1).

39
Q

39 What is the main objective behind the locus standi requirement?:

a. To establish that the applicant is not taking a frivolous claim;
b. To establish that the applicant has a genuine interest in the case;
c. To establish that the case is a real one as opposed to being a mere hypothetical one; or
d. To establish that the applicant is not seeking to fulfil a vendetta that he may have against the Respondent

A

c. To establish that the case is a real one as opposed to being a mere hypothetical one; or

40
Q

40 What must an applicant show in order to establish that he has the requisite locus standi?:

a. That he has a genuine interest in the case;
b. That he will be in some way affected by the decision;
c. That he will be in some way prejudiced by the decision; or
d. (B) and (C) above.

A

d. (B) and (C) above.

41
Q

41 In which of the following cases did the Court establish that to have locus standi the applicant must show that he or she had participated at an earlier stage in the decision making process and raised the legal issues or concerns at the time:

a. Mulcreevy –v- Minister for the Environment [2004] ILRM 419;
b. Lancefort Ltd. –v- An Bord Pleanala [1999] 2 IR 270;
c. G –v- DPP [1994] IR 1; or
d. O’Reilly –v- Cassidy [1995] ILRM 1.

A

a. Mulcreevy –v- Minister for the Environment [2004] ILRM 419;

42
Q

42 The locus standi test to challenge the constitutionality of a statute was established in the case of Cahill –v- Sutton. What is the test:

a. That he will be affected or prejudiced by the decision;
b. That he has a genuine bona fide interest in the case;
c. That he has suffered or is in imminent danger of suffering some injury or prejudice;
d. A) and (B) above.

A

a. That he will be affected or prejudiced by the decision

43
Q

43 In a recent case a company was incorporated specifically for the purposes of challenging a decision of a planning authority not to grant planning permission for a particular development in the city. It was argued that the company did not have the requisite standing to bring the case on the grounds that it had not participated in the planning process. However, the Supreme Court accepted that a company acting in a representative capacity may have the requisite standing. The Court went on to stated that a company should not be deprived of standing simply because it had not participated in the appeal process and had come into existence after the decision being challenged had been given.

a. Mulcreevy –v- Minister for the Environment [2004] ILRM 419;
b. Lancefort Ltd. –v- An Bord Pleanala [1999] 2 IR 270;
c. G –v- DPP [1994] IR 1; or
d. O’Reilly –v- Cassidy [1995] ILRM

A

b. Lancefort Ltd. –v- An Bord Pleanala [1999] 2 IR 270;

44
Q

44 In Mulcreevy –v- Minster for the Environment, the applicant here was a person whom the court found was not directly affected by the impugned decision. What were the reasons given by the Court in granting the applicant the requisite locus standi to take the case:

a. He had a genuine bona fide interest in the outcome of the case and there was no malice behind him taking the case;
b. He could give an undertaking as to damages and costs;
c. The grounds upon which he had taken the case were of substance;
d. (i) and (iii) above.

A

d. (i) and (iii) above.

45
Q

45 In relation to whether an applicant has an arguable case, what will the Court take into account in determining an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review as per O’Reilly –v- Cassidy:

a. Whether or not there is any lack of bona fides;
b. Whether there is an arguable case;
c. Whether there is a likelihood that the applicant will be successful in the end; or
d. All of the above.

A

b. Whether there is an arguable case;

46
Q

46 In what cases will the Courts impose a more onerous obligation on an Applicant in Judicial Review proceedings to show substantial grounds?:
a. in immigration matters;
b. in cases where the decision has been made on an error of law;
c. in planning matters;
d. both (i) and (iii) above

A

c. in planning matters;

47
Q

47 You are seeking leave to apply for Judicial Review in respect of a decision made by a public body. In examining the matter at leave stage, Judge Meldrew has reached a decision that he wishes to hear the Parties before making a decision. What are the consequences of such a decision?:
a. there are no consequences of this decision;
b. the applicant must prove that they have more than a good arguable case;
c. (A) and (B) above; or
d. None of the above.

A

c. (A) and (B) above

NB] Whilst this may seem ridiculous, the answer is actually (i) and (ii)

48
Q

48 Which of the following deals with the requisite time limits in a judicial review application?:
a. Order 84, rule 12;
b. Order 84, rule 21;
c. Order 84, rule 21 (1); or
d. Order 84, rule22 (1).

A

c. Order 84, rule 21 (1)

Order 84, Rule 21 (1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides that

49
Q

49 When does time stop ticking in respect of the time limits in a judicial review application?:
a. When the ex parte motion is made;
b. When the notice is served upon the other side;
c. When the applicant formed the bona fide intention to pursue the action;
d. (i) and (ii) above.

A

d. (i) and (ii) above.

50
Q

50 What are the required time limits in immigration matters?:
a. 28 days from the date of the impugned decision;
b. 14 days from the date of the impugned decision;
c. 10 days from the date of the impugned decision; or
d. 7 days from the date of the impugned decision.

A

b. 14 days from the date of the impugned decision;

51
Q

51 What are the required time limits in planning matters?:
a. 2 weeks from the date of the impugned decision;
b. 4 weeks from the date of the impugned decision;
c. 6 weeks from the date of the impugned decision; or
d. 8 weeks from the date of the impugned decision.

A

d. 8 weeks from the date of the impugned decision.

52
Q

52 What are the factors that will be taken into account by the Court in deciding whether or not to grant an extension of time as per the decision of Denham J in De Roiste –v- Minister for Defence [2001] 2 ILRM 241?:
a. the conduct of the Parties;
b. the nature of the impugned decision;
c. the effect of the impugned decision on both Parties and on Third Parties; or
All of the above.

A

All of the above

[NB] public policy is also a factor that will be taken into account by t

53
Q

53 What does Order 84, rule 20(5) state?:
a. where leave is sought for an order quashing any decision which is subject to appeal and time is limited for bringing the appeal, the Court may adjourn the leave application until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired;
b. where leave is sought for an order quashing any decision which a party may appeal, the Court may adjourn the leave application until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired;
c. leave may not be sought for an order quashing any decision which is subject to appeal until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired; or
d. leave may be sought for an order quashing any decision which is subject to appeal, but it is not necessary for the Court to adjourn the leave application until the appeal is determined.

A

a. where leave is sought for an order quashing any decision which is subject to appeal and time is limited for bringing the appeal, the Court may adjourn the leave application until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired;

54
Q

54 Do the Court have any kind of discretion as to whether or not leave to bring judicial review proceedings should be allowed where all other remedies have not been exhausted?:
a. no;
b. Yes, but only in limited circumstances;
c. Yes, but it a question of justice as to whether or not this discretion should be exercised; or
d. Both (ii) and (iii) above.

A

c. Yes, but it a question of justice as to whether or not this discretion should be exercised;

55
Q

55 What was taken into account by the Court (Denham J) in the case of Stefan –v- Minister for Justice [2001] 4 IR 203, in exercising its discretion regarding the availability of alternative remedies?:
a. The Court, in allowing the applicant leave to appeal stated that where there is a breach of fair procedure, there was no need to avail of an alternative remedy, as a fair appeal does not cure an unfair hearing;
b. Where the decision was made outside of the decision maker’s jurisdiction, taking into account the conduct of the applicant, the Court allowed leave to apply for judicial review;
c. The Court in this case refused the appeal on the basis that the appeal process is an adequate way to cure the defects of the original hearing; or
d. The Court refused leave to appeal on the basis that it was not satisfied with the purpose for which certiorari was sought. The Court went on to state that leave should only be granted where the purpose for which certiorari was sought was genuine, fitting with the interests of justice.

A

a. The Court, in allowing the applicant leave to appeal stated that where there is a breach of fair procedure, there was no need to avail of an alternative remedy, as a fair appeal does not cure an unfair hearing;

56
Q

56 Under what circumstances would a notice Party be joined to Judicial Review Proceedings?:
a. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings;
b. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings, against whom relief is sought;
c. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings, against whom relief is not sought; or
d. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings, against whom relief may be sought depending on the outcome of the proceedings.

A

C. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings, against whom relief is not sought;

57
Q

57 The procedure involved in Judicial Review is as follows:
i. Obtain leave to bring the JR proceedings through ex parte application;
ii. Application is grounded upon a statement of grounds and an affidavit;
iii. The documents are filed in the Central Office and it will get a record no.;
iv. Move the application on a Monday Morning in the ex parte Judicial Review list
v. If the matter is urgent, you have two options:
1. If during the week, make the application before the Judge in charge of the Judicial Review list; or
2. If during the vacation, make the application before the Duty Judge.

When would you move the application?
a. During the Thursday morning call over;
b. On any day during the week as long as it is before the Judge in charge of the Judicial Review list;
c. On a Monday morning on the ex parte judicial review list; or
d. All/any of the above.

A

c. On a Monday morning on the ex parte judicial review list

58
Q

58 There are essential differences between the Judicial Review process for Planning and immigration matters as opposed to the general JR application. Which of the following is not one of these differences:
a. the application should be made on notice to the Respondents/any other party who have a particular involvement in the case;
b. the applicant must show substantial grounds as opposed to an arguable case;
c. as the leave stage is heard on notice, it involves greater amounts of arguments from either party; or
d. regardless of the fact that the leave stage is heard on notice, it involves the same amount of argument from the Applicant (i.e.) an arguable case.

A

d. regardless of the fact that the leave stage is heard on notice, it involves the same amount of argument from the Applicant (i.e.) an arguable case.

59
Q

59 Will the Judicial Review procedure operate as a stay on the proceedings until the matter has been determined?:
a. yes;
b. yes, but only where the relief sought is certiorari;
c. Yes, but only where the Court so directs;
d. Yes, but only where the relief sought is prohibition and certiorari and only where the Court so directs.

A

d. Yes, but only where the relief sought is prohibition and certiorari and only where the Court so directs.

60
Q

60 The High Court have an inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order granting leave to institute Judicial Review proceedings. When is this done?:

a. In any case where the Court is under the opinion that the circumstances of the case warrant such an action;
b. Only in the most limited of circumstances;
c. Only where some element of fraud is proved;
d. None of the above.

A

b. Only in the most limited of circumstances;

61
Q

61 What was the decision of the Court in the case of Gordon –v- DPP:?

a. there was no difference in the standard of proof which needs be asserted by an applicant seeking to set aside an order than one seeking leave to apply for judicial review;
b. there was a difference in the standard of proof which needs be asserts by an applicant seeking to set aside an order than one seeking leave to apply for judicial review, in that the latter had a higher standard to prove;
c. the only difference as regards proof that a party seeking to have an order set aside has to prove is that there is some element of injustice suffered by them when leave to apply for judicial review was granted; or
d. there was a difference in the standard of proof which needs be asserted by an applicant seeking to set aside an order, in that he must show that leave should never have been granted whereas the original applicant need only show that he has an arguable case.

A

d. there was a difference in the standard of proof which needs be asserted by an applicant seeking to set aside an order, in that he must show that leave should never have been granted whereas the original applicant need only show that he has an arguable case.

62
Q

62 Judge Meldrew has granted Leave to apply but has directed that the action should proceed by way of Plenary Summons pursuant to Order 84, rule 22(1) instead of by the normal notice of motion. What is the significance of this?:

a. there is no material significance to this, it is merely a matter of Judicial preference;
b. the plenary summons procedure is only used where the legal issues in the case are extremely complex;
c. the plenary summons procedure is only used where the factual issues in the case are extremely complex;
d. both (B) and (C) above.

A

d. both (B) and (C) above

63
Q

As leave is granted on an ex parte basis, the relevant documents (i.e.) the motion or summons, a copy of the order granting leave, the statement of grounds and the verifying affidavit, have to be served upon the Respondent. Within what time frame should this be done?:

a. within 14 days or within such time as the Court may direct;
b. within 28 days or within such time as the Court may direct;
c. within 2 months or within such time as the Court may direct; or
d. within such time as the Court may direct.

A

a. within 14 days or within such time as the Court may direct;

64
Q

64 Leave has been granted and a return date has been specified. What is done on this return date?:

a. it is the date when the full matter is heard;
b. it is the date when the Parties exchange their documents;
c. it is the date when the Parties inform the Judge of the main issues in the case and to suggest time limits for the exchange of the pre-trial documents; or
d. it is the date when the time frame for the full hearing is set.

A

c. it is the date when the Parties inform the Judge of the main issues in the case and to suggest time limits for the exchange of the pre-trial documents;

65
Q

65 When should the written submissions be exchanged between the Parties?:

a. 7 days before the hearing of the matter unless the Court dispenses with this requirement;
b. 14 days before the hearing of the matter unless the Court dispenses with this requirement;
c. 7 days after the return date unless the Court dispenses with this requirement; or
d. 14 days after the return date unless the Court dispenses with this requirement.

A

a. 7 days before the hearing of the matter unless the Court dispenses with this requirement;

66
Q

66 What is the purpose of the Thursday call-over?:

a. to ascertain the date of the full hearing of the matter;
b. to ascertain if the case is still proceeding;
c. to ascertain if the written submissions have been filed;
d. both (ii) and (iii) above.

A

d. both (ii) and (iii) above.

67
Q

67 You have failed to turn up at a Thursday call-over when one of your client’s case was mentioned. What is the significance of this for your Client?:

a. nothing, the matter remains in being;
b. the hearing date will be vacated but the matter remains in being;
c. the case is struck out;
d. your client will suffer costs penalties but the matter will remain in being.

A

c. the case is struck out;

APPLICATOIN CAN BE MADE TO REENTER

68
Q

68 Which Order allows for interlocutory applications to be made in Judicial Review proceedings?:
a. Order 84, rule 5;
b. Order 84, rule 15;
c. Order 84, rule 25; or
d. Order 84, rule 35.

A

c. Order 84, rule 25