Judgment: 2001-05-29 · Court archive

Supreme Court judge would uphold £100,000 award to North Kildare-Wicklow State Solicitor

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Charles Coonan
  • Attorney General
  • Mr Justice Geoghegan
What

Supreme Court judge would uphold £100,000 award to North Kildare-Wicklow State Solicitor

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • North Kildare
  • Wicklow
  • High Court
  • Supreme Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court found in Coonan's favour and awarded him £100,000. The State appealed.

By Daniel Keane

A Supreme Court judge said he would uphold a £100,000 damages award to Charles Coonan over the refusal to extend his appointment as State Solicitor for North Kildare and Wicklow beyond the age of 65.

Mr Justice Geoghegan's judgment concerned conditions Coonan accepted when appointed in August 1974. Those terms provided that he could remain in office until 65 and that, if he was in good health, the Attorney General could, with the Minister for Finance's concurrence, extend his retirement age up to 70.

Coonan applied for an extension as he approached 65. The application was largely refused following a new Attorney General policy under which extensions would no longer be granted except in exceptional circumstances.

The High Court found in Coonan's favour and awarded him £100,000. The State appealed.

Geoghegan J rejected Coonan's broadest argument that good health automatically entitled him to an extension. He interpreted the word “may” in the appointment terms as giving the Attorney General a genuine discretion.

However, the judge drew a distinction between exercising that discretion in an individual case and replacing it with a general rule. He concluded that the Attorney General was contractually required to consider Coonan's individual circumstances and could not effectively remove that possibility through a blanket policy.

Geoghegan J said this conclusion arose from the express contractual terms rather than requiring reliance on promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation. He noted that the possibility of remaining until 70 would have been significant to State Solicitors, particularly because the appointment carried no pension entitlement.

On damages, he considered the High Court's £100,000 figure reasonable. Although Coonan had no guaranteed right to remain until 70, the judge said the High Court could assess the probabilities, particularly where no issue of ill-health or personal unsuitability had been raised.

He therefore stated that he would dismiss the State's appeal and leave the £100,000 award in place.

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