Boyhan v Beef Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Date: 01 January 1993
• Docket Number: [1991 No. 13757P]
• Court: High Court

Boyhan v. Beef Tribunal

Patrick Boyhan, Con Howard, Patrick J. Kenny, Michael McElligott and Patrick Murphy (as representing themselves and all other members of the United Farmers Association)

Plaintiffs

and

The Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry appointed by warrant of the Minister for Agriculture and Food dated 31st May, 1991

Defendant

[1991 No. 13757P]

High Court

Tribunal of inquiry - Legal representation - Whether fanners association entitled to full representation at proceedings of tribunal of inquiry into beef industry - Whether farmers association entitled to the books of documents of the tribunal - Whether farmers association an interested party - Status of the fanners association - Whether farmers association fully protected by the limited representation - Whether decision of the tribunal made within its discretion and jurisdiction - Interlocutory injunction - Whether there way a fair question to be tried - Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 (11 Geo. 5, c. 7), s. 2, para (b).

Words and phrases - "Person . . . interested" - Tribunal of inquiry into beef industry - Limited representation granted to farmers association by tribunal - Whether farmers association entitled to full representation at the proceedings of the tribunal - Whether farmers association an interested party - Whether the decision of the tribunal was made within its discretion and jurisdiction - Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 (11 Geo. 5, c. 7), s. 2, para.. (b).

Section 2, para. (b) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, provides as follows:—

"A tribunal to which this Act is so applied as aforesaid—

• (b) shall have power to authorise the representation before them to any person appearing to them to be interested to be by counsel or solicitor or otherwise, or to refuse to allow such representation."

The Tribunal of Inquiry into certain matters connected with the beef industry was appointed by warrant of the Minister for Agriculture and Food dated the 31st May, 1991, following a resolution of both houses of the Oireachtas.

The plaintiffs were members of the United Farmers Association (U.F.A.) The Tribunal granted them limited representation, namely, the right to be present when their witnesses gave evidence and to have the right to examine their witnesses and to participate in the tribunal at that time. The plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring the defendant to grant them full representation at the proceedings of the tribunal when it was dealing with matters which the plaintiffs deposed were particularly relevant to them ("relevant allegations") or, in the alternative, full representation at the proceedings of the tribunal where there was any purported refutation by or on behalf of any other parties of the evidence given by the plaintiffs' witnesses. They also sought an injunction directing the tribunal to furnish books of documents in relation to the "relevant allegations" or, in the alternative, such portions of the books of documents which comprised evidence tending to support or refute the evidence to be given by the plaintiffs' witnesses at the tribunal. The plaintiffs alleged inter alia that they represented the public interest and the interest of farmers.

Held by Denham J., in refusing the plaintiffs' application, 1, that the plaintiffs had not presented an arguable case that the Tribunal's decision was untenable or endangered their constitutional rights and accordingly failed to show that there was a fair question to be tried by the court.

2. That the U.F.A. was not an "interested" person within the meaning of s. 2, para. (b) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. The fact that a person's economic and financial interest might be affected did not give such person a right to be legally represented before a tribunal.

3. That the U.F.A did not represent the public which was already represented by the Attorney General, or farmers in general or anyone other than its members.

4. That the position of the U.F.A in relation to the tribunal was analogous to a willing witness at a trial against whom no allegations had been made and its position was fully protected by the limited legal representation awarded by the tribunal, and that such witnesses were not entitled to books of documents.

In re Haughey [1971] I.R. 217 and K. Security Ltd. and William Kavanagh v. Ireland and the Attorney General (Unreported, High Court, Gannon J., 15th July, 1977) considered.

5. That the decision of the defendant tribunal with regard to the plaintiffs' representation was made within its discretion and jurisdiction pursuant to s. 2, para. (b) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and therefore the High Court did not have jurisdiction to interfere with it.

Dictum of Finlay C.J. in O'Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanála[1993] 1 I.R. 39 at p. 70 applied.

Cases mentioned in this report:—

In re Haughey [1971] I.R. 217.

K. Security Ltd and William Kavanagh v. Ireland and the Attorney General (Unreported, High Court, Gannon J., 15th July, 1977).

O'Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 39.

The State (Keegan) v. Stardust Compensation Tribunal [1986] I.R. 642; [1987] I.L.R.M. 202.

Notice of Motion.

The facts are summarised in the headnote and are set out in the judgment of Denham J., post.

By a plenary summons issued on the 2nd October, 1991, the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and mandatory injunctions. By a notice of motion issued on the 2nd October, 1991, the plaintiffs sought interlocutory mandatory injunctions as claimed in the plenary summons. The notice of motion came on for hearing before the High Court (Denham J.) on the 4th October, 1991.

Cur. adv. vult.

Denham J.

This is an application by the plaintiffs for interlocutory relief against the defendant seeking:—

• 1. A mandatory injunction directing the said Tribunal of Inquiry into the beef processing industry to grant the plaintiff association full representation for that part of the proceedings of the said Tribunal of Inquiry as encompasses the "relevant allegations".The plaintiffs deposed that they were of the opinion that certain of the allegations contained in the document prepared by the Tribunal entitled "Allegations—Dáil Éireann éireannand World in Action Programme" are particularly relevant to the United Farmers Association ("U.F.A") and/or members of the farming community—these they call "relevant allegations".These "relevant allegations" encompass:—

"A. Fraudulent practices at the meat plants—general;

B. The Waterford and Ballymun investigations;

C. The Eir Freeze investigation;

D. Other allegations of fraudulent practices;

E. Anti-competitive practices;

L. Goodman and Classic Meats; and

M. The role of the regulatory authorities."

2. Alternatively, a mandatory injunction directing that the plaintiff association be granted representation for that part of the proceedings of...