[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Short & Ors v. Ireland & Ors [2003] IEHC 177 (13 February 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2003/177.html Cite as: [2003] IEHC 177

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 
THE HIGH COURT

RECORD NO. 1994/1751P

BETWEEN

CONSTANCE SHORT, MARY KAVANAGH, MARK DEAREY
AND OLLAN HERR

PLAINTIFFS

AND
IRELAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
BRITISH NUCLEAR FUELS PLC

DEFENDANTS

Judgment of Finnegan P. delivered on the 13th day of February 2003

This matter comes before me by way of motion for directions it being agreed between the parties that I should identify the issues which arise between the Plaintiff and the first and second named Defendants and the Plaintiff and the third named Defendant and within those issues identify those issues which can be conveniently disposed of in advance of the plenary hearing and which will assist in the orderly and efficient presentation of evidence at the plenary hearing or substantially dispose of the action or issues within the action.

The Statement of Claim delivered in the matter discloses in effect two separate and distinct actions, one against the first and second named Defendants and the other against the third named Defendant. It is possible to determine issues which arise between the Plaintiffs and the first and second named Defendants without participation of the third named Defendant and issues between the Plaintiffs and the third named Defendant without participation of the first and second named Defendants. The parties submitted detailed submissions on the issues arising in the action and those issues which can conveniently be dealt with in advance of the plenary hearing. It was agreed before me that issues arising between the Plaintiffs and the first and second named Defendants and between the Plaintiff and the third named Defendant appropriate to be dealt with in advance of the plenary hearing need not all be dealt with at the same time but could be segmented.

I have determined that the following issues arising between the Plaintiffs and the first named Defendant should be dealt with as a single segment –

1. If the Plaintiffs or any of them have suffered loss or damage by reason of the alleged wrongdoing of the third named Defendant is there pleaded any cause of action that can properly be pursued by the Plaintiffs against the first and second named Defendants.

2. If there is pleaded any cause of action that can properly be pursued by the Plaintiffs against the first and second named Defendants can the court grant relief

(i) by way of damages

(ii) by way of mandatory injunction

3. Did the first and second named Defendant owe to the Plaintiffs a duty under Articles 40.1, 40.3.1, 40.3.2, 40.3.3, 41 and 43 of the Constitution to take the measures set forth in the Statement of Claim at paragraph 10.2 thereof or any of them.

4. Are the Plaintiffs entitled to maintain this action in respect of the first and second named Defendants alleged breach of duty under the Articles aforesaid of the Constitution in respect of –

(i) their families

(ii) the unborn

I have determined that the following issues arising between the Plaintiffs and the third named Defendant should be dealt with in two segments and in the sequence which I set out. In the first segment I have included the third named Defendants suggested issue 9. as I am satisfied that the applicable law is a factor relevant to the issue of forum conveniens.

First Segment

1. Does the court have jurisdiction to determine and declare that THORP should have been subject to an environmental impact assessment within the meaning of EC Council Directive 85/337 (as amended) and/or that it should have been subject to a "justification procedure" as provided by Euratom Directives 80/836 and 84/467 (as amended).
2. Has the court jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction compelling the third named defendant to comply with the said directives.
3. What is the applicable law by reference to which the Plaintiffs' claims are to be determined.
4. If the court has jurisdiction in respect of the Plaintiffs' claims against the third named Defendant should the court in all the circumstances decline such jurisdiction or stay the proceedings on the grounds of forum conveniens.

Second Segment

5. Have the Plaintiffs a cause of action at law as a result of the alleged non compliance of the third named Defendant with EC Council Directive 85(337) (as amended) and/or Euratom Directives 80/836 and 84/467 (as amended).
6. Have the Plaintiffs a private law cause of action against the third named Defendant in respect of –

(a) The precautionary principle and/or

(b) The principle that preventative action should be taken in respect of an alleged breach of Article 130R of the Treaty on European Union as amended and/or extended and/or

(c) The Euratom Treaty as amended and/or extended

7. If the answer to issue 4. is yes, have the Plaintiffs a private law cause of action against the third named Defendant on the basis that the third named Defendant causes man made radioactive discharges to be made into the environment irrespective of the level, extent or frequency of such discharges.

Immediately the parties are in a position to proceed to hearing on any of the foregoing segments application should be made to me and I will arrange for an early hearing date convenient to the parties.

Following on the determination of the foregoing issues I will consider whether there are any further issues of law or issues of fact which can conveniently be dealt with separately from the plenary hearing with a view to saving expense or time at the plenary hearing.