6/10/2020 Sinnott -v- The Minister for The Environment [2017] IEHC 214 (30 March 2017) (“NDA”) in June, 2014 of three methods to assist VIP voters in voting independently and with minimal physical assistance from third parties. 11. Following the completion of oral evidence on 20th July, 2016, and the exchange of written legal submissions over the long vacation, the Court reconvened to hear closing oral submissions on 1st November, 2016. Without any advance notice, counsel for the defendants interjected while counsel for the plaintiff was making a submission about referenda to advise that the defendant Minister had made on 20th October, 2016 regulations entitled Electoral Regulations 2016 [S.I. 537 of 2016] (“the 2016 regulations”) which provide for a ballot paper template and thereby allowing VIPs to vote independently at referenda. Official notice of those regulations was published in Iris Oifigiúil on Friday, 28th October 2016. There was no reference to the prospect of the 2016 regulations in the defendants’ written submissions dated 14th October, 2016. Counsel for the defendants maintained that the making of the 2016 regulations should not alter the plaintiff’s stance and final oral submissions. 12. Suffice to say that I agreed that the plaintiff’s legal team should have an opportunity to recast their submissions for economy of time and ultimate effectiveness of the reliefs which might be granted by this Court in light of this development. Declarations Sought 13. Towards the end of the reconvened oral submissions on Tuesday, 20th December, 2016, counsel for the plaintiff put forward the following declarations to meet the plaintiff’s concerns about the defendant Minister’s position:“A declaration that the defendants were and are under a duty to:(i) provide by regulation made under s. 94(5)(j) of the Electoral Act 1992, as amended by the Electoral (Amendment) Act 1996 for arrangements to facilitate blind and visually impaired persons to vote by secret ballot in general, local, European elections and in referendums where it is reasonably practicable, economical and effective to do so; (ii) facilitate the right of blind and visually impaired voters pursuant to declaration (i) in order to vindicate their constitutional right to vote by secret ballot”. 14. I allowed counsel for the defendants to obtain instructions over night while further oral submissions by counsel for the plaintiff were completed. This elongated story needed to evolve because it is important that the Court is directed to the real gravaman as it exists at the end of the trial. 15. The position of the defendants on 21st December, 2016 was that the declarations now sought were “anything but a matter of housekeeping” as depicted. Ultimately, it was agreed that a formal application to amend the Statement of Claim should be heard on 7th February, 2017 when the defendants’ oral submissions on all matters would be completed irrespective of the outcome to the application to amend the Statement of Claim. Motion to Amend 16. Having regard to the substantive issues which are detailed later in this judgment, it is opportune at this stage to decide on the leave sought by the plaintiff by way of Notice of Motion issued on 31st January, 2017. 17. Order 28(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts (“RSC”) permits the Court “at any stage of the proceedings” to grant leave for the amendment of pleadings “in such manner and on such terms as may be just” while the amendment shall be as “necessary for the purpose of determining the questions in controversy between the parties”. The Supreme Court in Croke v. Waterford Crystal Limited [2005] 2 IR 383 held that this “is intended to be a liberal rule” subject to taking into account other factors. 18. O’Sullivan J. in Cornhill v. Minister for Agriculture [1998] IEHC 47 stated at para. 21 that:“an amendment to the pleadings should be allowed if it would have been appropriate in the original pleadings, [and] would have withstood an attack under Order 19(28) of the RSC and provided no injustice (in the sense contemplated by the authorities) is thereby done to the opposing party.” www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2017/H214.html 3/15