236:"The opinion formed by the Minister after consultation with the Governor and the Regulatory Authority, and necessarily endorsed by the Oireachtas, is threefold, and requires three related opinions in ascending order of seriousness: first, that there is a serious threat to the stability of credit institutions in the State generally, or that there would be such a threat if the functions under the Act were not performed; second, that the performance of those statutory functions is necessary for maintaining the stability of the financial system in the State; and third, that the performance of those functions is necessary to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of the State. Significantly, under s. 2(2) it is envisaged that the Minister may continue to consult with Governor and Regulatory Authority in the continuing performance of the functions under this Act."
223:
decision. However, the Court agreed that the sole entity who can create law under the Irish
Constitution is the House of the Oireachtas. The court's summary of the delegation of power in financial matters is that the Constitution provides something of a "double lock on expenditure". According to Article 17.2 of the Constitution, "Dáil Éireann shall not pass any vote or resolution, and no law shall be enacted, for the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys unless ... recommended to Dáil Éireann by a message from the Government signed by the Taoiseach" However, under Article 11 of the Constitution, the Government cannot expend
31:
343:
241:
actually involved here was vast, and the impact on the State's finances significant. The legislation is therefore in every sense exceptional." As the court noted, "it was a permissible constitutional response to an exceptional situation. It cannot therefore be considered to be a template for broader
Ministerial power on other occasions".
231:
The court found that the 2008 Act was "undoubtedly law", but did not provide for the issuance of promissory notes - this power was delegated to the
Minister. The question for the court then was whether this delegation of power was impermissible and unconstitutional. The court found that the 2008 Act
240:
In the case of the promissory notes, the Court found that the Credit
Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 was not an unconstitutional delegation of power to the Government under the 2008 Act. This was particularly the case regarding the extreme circumstances then facing the State; "he amount
222:
The case was heard before a six judge panel, each of whom contributed to the written judgement. The court noted that "There is no doubt but that the constitutional provisions under consideration in this case are of the highest importance." It then went on to agree with the High Court's previous
159:, which was found to be constitutional. Collins's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which concluded that, "a Minister for Finance can spend any amount of money they deem necessary in an emergency without going back to the Dáil". The case thus legalised emergency measure to deal with
227:
for purposes that are not authorised by the law. Thus, neither the
Government, the Dail or the Oireachtas can validly authorise the expenditure of public monies without the approval of the other branch. This is a constitutional model.
268:
366:
214:, there were several articles set out that Ms. Collins asserted where breached when she brought forward her appeal, which were Article 11, Article 17, and Article 28.
191:
proceedings, asserting that this was subject to section 6 of the 2008 Act, which was above the power of the
Minister for Finance, and it was unconstitutional for the
232:
provided sufficient limitations on the
Minister's ability to make financial decisions as constitutionally valid. This was contained in the following statement:
195:(Irish parliament) to approve this expenditure for the Minister. Ms. Collins argued that this issue of promissory notes should have been subject to a
507:
204:
172:
156:
536:
269:"Collins v Minister for Finance: €31 billion promissory note was a permissible constitutional response to an exceptional situation"
541:
175:, the Minister for Finance issued promissory notes to the value of EUR 30 billion to two financial institutions. These were the
108:
The Appeal of Joan
Collins, TD to the legality of the Minister for Finance giving promissory notes to financial institutions
199:
vote. When this case was brought before the High Court, one of the issues that arose for Ms. Collins was her lack of
180:
183:(IBRC). Under the terms of this deal, this imposed a repayment liability of EUR 3 billion per year on the state.
160:
148:
318:"Collins -v- Minister for Finance, Ireland and the Attorney General [2016] IESC 73 (16 December 2016)"
317:
140:
531:
526:
184:
144:
46:
430:
211:
118:
35:
455:
491:
480:
8:
376:
196:
163:. This was a case in which "the matters described" were of "national importance."
371:
188:
152:
200:
520:
380:
124:
30:
203:, (legal standing) as she was only elected in 2011, after 2008, when the
192:
176:
207:
was passed and after 2010, when the promissory notes had been issued.
98:
Denham C.J., O’Donnell, McKechnie, Clarke, Dunne and
Charleton JJ.
344:"THE OIREACHTAS AND THE EUROCRISIS: EMPOWERMENT THROUGH CRISIS"
367:"Joan Collins loses Supreme Court appeal on promissory notes"
224:
166:
431:"Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008"
155:(promises to pay money at a later date) under the
518:
205:Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008
173:Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008
157:Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008
408:Feldman, Estelle (2016). "Constitutional Law".
217:
460:McGarr Solicitors - Dublin Solicitors Ireland
122:
29:
364:
407:
519:
341:
312:
310:
167:Background (and High Court challenge)
481:Article 17.2 Constitution of Ireland
425:
423:
416:(1): 111–205 – via Westlaw.ie.
403:
401:
399:
397:
308:
306:
304:
302:
300:
298:
296:
294:
292:
290:
263:
261:
259:
257:
151:did not breach his power in issuing
64:IESC 73; 1 I.L.R.M. 65; 3 I.R. 99
13:
492:Article 11 Constitution of Ireland
14:
553:
500:
420:
394:
287:
254:
181:Irish Bank Resolution Corporation
244:The court dismissed the appeal.
171:In 2011, under section 6 of the
537:2017 in the Republic of Ireland
542:Supreme Court of Ireland cases
508:Collins v Minister for Finance
485:
474:
448:
358:
335:
137:Collins v Minister for Finance
24:Collins v Minister for Finance
1:
247:
141:IESC 73; 1 ILRM 65; 3 IR 99
365:Carolan, Mary; Keena, Colm.
354:: 67–89 – via Westlaw.
218:Holding of the Supreme Court
177:Educational Building Society
7:
10:
558:
410:Annual Review of Irish Law
187:, TD (the appellant) took
161:Ireland's financial crisis
117:
112:
107:
102:
94:
89:
81:
73:
68:
60:
52:
42:
28:
23:
342:Coutts, Stephen (2018).
47:Supreme Court of Ireland
16:Irish Supreme Court case
143:, is case in which the
119:Constitution of Ireland
36:Coat of arms of Ireland
238:
123:
234:
149:Minister for Finance
145:Irish Supreme Court
129:, Ministerial power
462:. 28 December 2007
456:"Locus Standi (2)"
435:Irish Statute Book
275:. 17 December 2016
212:Irish Constitution
532:2017 in Irish law
133:
132:
121:, State finance,
549:
527:2017 in case law
494:
489:
483:
478:
472:
471:
469:
467:
452:
446:
445:
443:
441:
427:
418:
417:
405:
392:
391:
389:
387:
362:
356:
355:
348:The Irish Jurist
339:
333:
332:
330:
328:
314:
285:
284:
282:
280:
265:
153:promissory notes
128:
90:Court membership
56:16 December 2016
33:
21:
20:
557:
556:
552:
551:
550:
548:
547:
546:
517:
516:
514:
503:
498:
497:
490:
486:
479:
475:
465:
463:
454:
453:
449:
439:
437:
429:
428:
421:
406:
395:
385:
383:
372:The Irish Times
363:
359:
340:
336:
326:
324:
316:
315:
288:
278:
276:
267:
266:
255:
250:
220:
189:judicial review
179:(EBS), and the
169:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
555:
545:
544:
539:
534:
529:
512:
511:
502:
501:External links
499:
496:
495:
484:
473:
447:
419:
393:
357:
334:
286:
252:
251:
249:
246:
219:
216:
168:
165:
147:held that the
131:
130:
115:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
96:
95:Judges sitting
92:
91:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
554:
543:
540:
538:
535:
533:
530:
528:
525:
524:
522:
515:
510:
509:
505:
504:
493:
488:
482:
477:
461:
457:
451:
436:
432:
426:
424:
415:
411:
404:
402:
400:
398:
382:
378:
374:
373:
368:
361:
353:
349:
345:
338:
323:
319:
313:
311:
309:
307:
305:
303:
301:
299:
297:
295:
293:
291:
274:
270:
264:
262:
260:
258:
253:
245:
242:
237:
233:
229:
226:
215:
213:
208:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
164:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
139:
138:
127:
126:
120:
116:
111:
106:
103:Case opinions
101:
97:
93:
88:
85:Supreme Court
84:
80:
76:
74:Appealed from
72:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
37:
32:
27:
22:
19:
513:
506:
487:
476:
464:. Retrieved
459:
450:
438:. Retrieved
434:
413:
409:
384:. Retrieved
370:
360:
351:
347:
337:
325:. Retrieved
321:
277:. Retrieved
272:
243:
239:
235:
230:
221:
209:
201:locus standi
197:Dáil Éireann
185:Joan Collins
170:
136:
135:
134:
125:Locus standi
69:Case history
18:
466:23 December
440:23 December
386:23 December
327:23 December
279:23 December
210:Within the
82:Appealed to
521:Categories
375:. Dublin.
273:SCOIRLBLOG
248:References
193:Oireachtas
77:High Court
381:0791-5144
113:Keywords
61:Citation
53:Decided
379:
322:BAILII
225:monies
43:Court
468:2019
442:2019
388:2019
377:ISSN
329:2019
281:2019
523::
458:.
433:.
422:^
412:.
396:^
369:.
352:60
350:.
346:.
320:.
289:^
271:.
256:^
470:.
444:.
414:1
390:.
331:.
283:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
