Judgment: 2012-11-07 · Court archive

High Court rejects challenge to Donegal council co-option

The court found Michael McBride was not a Labour Party member or candidate when co-opted to fill a non-party seat on Donegal County Council, and refused the relief sought.

High Court · [2012] IEHC 417

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Desmond Shiels (Applicant)
  • Donegal County Council (Respondent)
  • Michael McBride
  • Justice Dunne
What

The court found Michael McBride was not a Labour Party member or candidate when co-opted to fill a non-party seat on Donegal County Council, and refused the relief sought.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Donegal
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 30 May 2011

    Shiels argued that McBride was a Labour Party candidate or nominee when he was co-opted on 30 May 2011, making him ineligible for the seat. He relied on media reports and comments made around the time of the co-option. The council disputed that account. McBride said in affidavits that he had never been a Labour Party member or candidate, and that no requirement to join the party had been attached to the offer of the seat.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has refused an application by Desmond Shiels to challenge Michael McBride’s co-option to Donegal County Council, finding that McBride was not a Labour Party member or candidate when he took the seat.

The High Court has refused an application by Desmond Shiels to challenge Michael McBride’s co-option to Donegal County Council, finding that McBride was not a Labour Party member or candidate when he took the seat.

The vacancy arose after Councillor Harte, who had been elected to the council as a non-party candidate, was elected to Seanad Éireann in April 2011. Under the council’s Standing Order 84, because Harte had not lodged a list of preferred nominees, the vacancy was to be filled by co-opting a non-party candidate.

Shiels argued that McBride was a Labour Party candidate or nominee when he was co-opted on 30 May 2011, making him ineligible for the seat. He relied on media reports and comments made around the time of the co-option. The council disputed that account. McBride said in affidavits that he had never been a Labour Party member or candidate, and that no requirement to join the party had been attached to the offer of the seat.

The judgment noted that some public comments had created confusion about McBride’s political status. It also recorded that McBride said he had initially assumed he would have to become a Labour Party councillor, but learned on the morning of the co-option that only a non-party candidate could be nominated. The council’s evidence was that he was subsequently listed on its website as independent.

Justice Dunne said the media reports were hearsay at best and that the court had to decide the case on the evidence before it. She accepted McBride’s uncontroverted affidavit evidence that he was not a Labour Party member and concluded that he could not be described as the party’s candidate. His nomination by two Labour Party members did not change that conclusion.

The court considered only the ground on which leave for judicial review had been granted: whether McBride was ineligible because he was not a non-party candidate. It did not decide other complaints about notice, agendas or the conduct of the council meeting, which were outside the scope of the granted leave. Finding that Shiels could not establish McBride was a Labour Party member or candidate at the time, the court refused the relief sought. The judgment does not set out a separate order for costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review