Bridgeman v Limerick Corporation
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | Supreme Court |
Judge | Keane C.J. |
Judgment Date | 15 June 2001 |
Neutral Citation | [2001] IESC 51 |
Docket Number | [S.C. No. |
Date | 15 June 2001 |
[2001] IESC 51
THE SUPREME COURT
Keane C.J.
Murphy J.
McGuinness J.
Between:
and
Citations:
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S6
LIMERICK CORPORATION CASUAL TRADING BYE-LAWS 1998 2
LIMERICK MARKETS ACTS 1852–1992
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S6(7)
LIMERICK MARKETS ACTS 1852 S30
LIMERICK MARKETS ACTS 1852 S32
LIMERICK MARKETS ACT 1992 S3
LIMERICK MARKETS ACTS 1852 S40
LIMERICK MARKETS ACTS 1852 S41
LIMERICK MARKETS ACTS 1852 S44
LIMERICK MARKETS ACTS 1852 S46
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S2(1)
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S2(2)
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S3(1)
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S4
AG V PRINCE ERNEST AUGUSTUS OF HANOVER 1957 AC 436
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 SCHEDULE C
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1980 19(1)
HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND 3RD ED 381
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S7
CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S8
Synopsis
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Casual trading
Statutory interpretation - Meaning of word "market" - Street trading - Delegation of legislation — Locus standi - Casual Trading Act, 1995 - Limerick Markets Act, 1852 section 32 (192/2000 - Supreme Court - 15/6/01) - [2001] 2 IR 517
Bridgeman v Limerick Corporation
The applicant was a market trader in Limerick City. The respondents had enacted bylaws designating a certain casual trading area. The applicant initiated judicial review proceedings claiming that the bylaws in question were in breach of existing legislation. Finnegan J held that the creation of a casual trading area did not contravene existing legislation and dismissed the case. In the Supreme Court, Keane J delivering judgment, upheld the bylaws in question, affirmed the order of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT delivered the 15th day of June 2001 by Keane C.J. [nem diss]
The applicant in these judicial review proceedings, at the date they were instituted in the High Court, had been trading in the City of Limerick in a market which was held every Saturday at the same location for more than 30 years where he had been selling costume jewellery. On the 13th July 1998, the respondents (hereafter "the Corporation") purported to make bye-laws under s. 6 of the Casual Trading Act 1995(hereafter "the 1995 Act") which were to come into operation on the 13th August 1998. These provided for the designation of a casual trading area in the same location which was to be divided into 99 trading spaces measuring (in imperial measure) 10 feet by 6 feet or 6 feet by 6 feet. The applicant claims that these spaces are not capable of accommodating the vehicle from which he has been trading and that, in the result, the designation of this area as a casual trading area will seriously affect his ability to earn his livelihood.
The applicant made his concerns known to a body called the Irish Organisation of Market and Street Traders which was established for the purpose of protecting and representing the interests of street market traders throughout the State. They in turn took legal advice as to the power of the Corporation to make the bye-laws in question and this led to these proceedings.
On the 28th July 1999 the High Court (Kelly J.) gave the applicant leave to apply by way of an application for judicial review for inter alia an order of certiorari in respect of the Limerick Corporation Casual Trading Bye-laws 1998 (hereafter "the bye-laws") and a declaration that the making of the bye-laws, and in particular bye-law 2 which provided for the designation of the area in question as a casual trading area, constituted the establishment of a market within the municipal boundaries of the County Borough of Limerick and accordingly contravened the provisions of the Limerick Markets Act 1852 (hereafter "the 1852 Act") as amended.
A statement of opposition was filed on behalf of the Corporation in which three matters were raised by way of opposition to the application, i.e.
(1) the applicant had no locus standi to make the application;
(2) the casual trading area proposed in the bye-laws was not a market within the meaning of the Limerick Markets Acts 1852 to 1992 and, accordingly, was not created in breach of any provision of the 1852 Act;
(3) the applicant having failed to avail of the procedures for challenging the bye-laws provided by s. 6(7) of the 1995 Act, the court should refuse to extend the time for bringing the application and/or should refuse the application in its discretion.
The application came on for hearing in the High Court before Finnegan J. In a reserved judgment, he said that he was satisfied that the applicant had locus standi and that the fact that he had not pursued the appeal available to him under the 1995 Act was not a ground of itself for refusing him relief. He was also satisfied, however, that the bye-laws did not contravene the 1852 Act and accordingly refused the application. From that judgment and order, the applicant has now appealed to this court. While no notice to vary the judgment was served on behalf of the Corporation, it was argued in the written and oral submissions on their behalf that the applicant did not have locus standi and that, if he had, the High Court should have exercised its discretion to refuse the application on the ground that he had not exhausted the remedy open to him by way of appeal under the 1955 Act.
The relevant provisions of the 1852 Act should be referred to first. The preamble begins with the following recital:
"Whereas the present Markets for the Sale of Corn and other Agricultural Produce in the Borough of Limerick are insufficient: and whereas there are not at present established in the said Borough or the Suburbs thereof any fit or sufficient Markets for the Sale of live Cattle or other live Stock, or of dead Pigs, or of Corn, Butter, Hay, Straw, Green Food for Cattle, Vegetables, or other agricultural produce, or of Eggs, Fowl, Fish, or such like Articles, to the great Inconvenience and Annoyance of the Inhabitants of the said Borough and of Persons resorting thereto ..."
The preamble goes on to recite that the Corporation were the owners of several of the markets held within the Borough and that it would be a material "accommodation and advantage" to the inhabitants of the Borough and persons resorting thereto and all persons interested in buying and selling therein, if the markets were rendered more "sufficient, fit, and convenient" and placed under proper control. It also recited that the management of the markets should be placed in the hands of trustees representing equally the interest of the Corporation, the merchants trading in the Borough and the "Agriculturists and Land Holders" of the Country of Limerick.
The Act then goes on to appoint trustees for these purposes who are to be a body corporate knows as "the Limerick Market Trustees". Section 30 then provides inter aliathat
"It shall be lawful for the trustees, upon the Lands delineated in the said Plans and Sections and described in the said Book of Reference, to enter, and the same to take and appropriate for the Purposes of this Act, and upon the lands so entered upon, taken, and appropriated to make, construct, provide and establish a new market place or Market Places, with all necessary Buildings and Works, Conveniences, and Appurtenances thereto, for the sale respectively of Corn and all other Agricultural produce, Cattle and other live Stock, dead Pigs, Butter, Fish, Fowl, Eggs, Potatoes, Fruit and Vegetables, Hay, Straw, and Green Food for Cattle, and of all such other Marketable Commodities as are in Schedule (C) to this Act annexed respectively mentioned or referred to, and to make, execute and maintain the same, and the Approaches thereto, and other Works in connexion therewith, upon the Lands delineated and described in the said Plans and Sections ..."
Section 32, on which the applicant strongly relied in this case, was as follows:
"The Markets to be provided and established under this Act shall be held within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Damhnait Nic Bhrádaig v Employment Appeals Tribunal and Others
...they cannot be used to displace the actual language in the operative part of a statute. Keane C.J. in Bridgeman v. Limerick Corporation [2001] 2 I.R. 517, dealing with the Limerick Markets Act 1852, stated that:- "One is entitled to have regard to the preamble as being a guide to the legisl......
-
Simmonds and Another v Ennis Town Council (No 2)
...by the 1995 Act and a trading licence was required, on the proviso valid bye-laws were enacted. Bridgeman v Limerick Corporation [2001] 2 IR 517 considered. Any test of the validity of the bye-laws enacted by the defendant was a matter for the plenary hearing, and co comment was appropriate......
-
S.M. v Ireland (No 2)
...1 IR 409 1991 ILRM 556 1991 3 647 BRIDGEMAN v LIMERICK CORPORATION UNREP FINNEGAN 2.6.2000 2000/3/812 BRIDGEMAN v LIMERICK CORPORATION 2001 2 IR 517 2001 2 444 CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S7(4) CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 (COMMENCEMENT) ORDER 1995 SI 267/1995 CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S6 CASUAL TRADI......
-
Simmonds v Kilkenny Borough Council and Others
...DUBLIN CORP 1991 1 IR 409 1991 ILRM 556 1991/3/647 BRIDGEMAN v LIMERICK CORP UNREP FINNEGAN 2.6.2000 2000/3/812 BRIDGEMAN v LIMERICK CORP 2001 2 IR 517 2001/2/444 CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S7(4) CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 (COMMENCEMENT) ORDER 1995 SI 267/1995 CASUAL TRADING ACT 1995 S6 CASUAL TR......