#17445 - Admin Law Remedies Damages For Breach Of Constitutional Rights And Echr Rights - Administrative Law: Remedies

DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 1. Breach of constitutional rights 2. Human Rights Act 2003 Meskell v CIE [1973] IR 121 Meskell was a bus conductor working for CIE. CIE announce that all employees must join one of their in-house trade unions. He didn't want to. The result of this was that he was dismissed. At common law at the time, an employer may dismiss an employee on notice on any ground no matter how obnoxious as long as there was sufficient notice. couldn't bring an action for unlawful dismissal. Instead, brought a claim for damages arising out of breach by an entity of the state of a constitutional right.CIE breached Meskell's constitutional rights - such a right was the right of association, the corollary of which was a right of disassociation.Claimants are entitled to damages for breach of CR regardless of whether the interest/ right is not protected at common law.Constitution is not and never has been dependent on CL. It has its own rights and wrongsConstitutional rights are empty promises if there is no remedy for their breach THE CONDITIONS Hanrahan v Merck Sharpe and Dohm [1988] ILRM 629 Mr. Hanrahan lived within a mile of D's pharmaceutical plant. The P began to complain about feeling unwell and noticed cattle heard experiencing a high degree of mortality. The claim was that the D was responsible. He sued for two causes of action. The first was nuisance against the Ds directly. Then as a default/ back up - he argued breach of constitutional rights to possession of his cattle and to bodily integrity. Causation difficult to prove in the former. He argued that where the common law was ineffective in its remedy, the constitution should be able to provide an alternative. 1. There is an improper intrusion on constitutional rights 2. The existing common law remedies must be basically ineffective.There is a distinction between where a common law does not ever recognise something as being unlawful, and where there is a certain transaction that is capable of being unlawful under CL, but the claimant fails to succeed.The constitutional route will be available where the remedy does not exist at common law, but not merely where a claimant has a weak case. BASICALLY INEFFECTIVE - THE DISTINCTION Blehein v Minister for Health Children [2019] IESC 53 Most recent case SC: 1. Examine the facts as alleged and ascertain whether such can be identified within the general corpus of the common law, for if they can…that cause of action will provide an adequate vehicle.' where remedy available for breach of constitutional rights @ common law,'must pursue his grievance within the parameters of that tort'Where the 'facts and circumstances of the case do not fall within a recognised category of action at common law': a. Because it does not exist even if the case was strong and the breach was grave - cause of action. b. Because it is not strong enough - no cause of action for breach of const. right A. WHERE NO CATEGORY AT COMMON LAW WOULD GENERATE A CAUSE OF ACTION REGARDLESS OF THE SCALE OF THE ABUSE Meskell v CIE. - CL didn't provide a remedy for unlawful dismissal Blehein v Minister for Health Children [2019] IESC 53 Medical Treatment Act s 260 - the purpose of the provision was to make it more difficult for detained people under mental health process to sue the state for damages arising out of maladministration in that process. Effectively picked on those detained under this act - deemed them to be cranks SC held that this was anunconstitutional interference on the right of access to the courts, and held that there was a corresponding remedy of some formno common law doctrine creating a cause of action for damages arising out of unconstitutionally enacted legislation At CL, there can never be a causing of action arising out of this because parliament is 'sovereign.' - cannot be sued for enacted unconstitutional legislation. Perfect example of a category A case. Simpson v Gov of Mountjoy Prison [2019] IESC 81 The P was complaining of the conditions of 'slopping out' which means using toilet facilities with no privacy to put it nicely.