Dunnes Stores v Revenue Commissioners

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice John MacMenamin
• Judgment Date: 04 June 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESC 50
• Docket Number: Appeal No: 66/2012,[S.C. No. 66 of 2012]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 04 June 2019

BETWEEN/

DUNNES STORES

Applicant/Appellant

- and -

THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS, THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondents

[2019] IESC 50

Appeal No: 66/2012

THE SUPREME COURT

Statutory provision – Legislative clarity – Public policy – Appellant seeking the Supreme Court’s interpretation of legislation – Whether some statutory provision is so unclear in its wording, or confusingly cross-referenced to other statutes, amendments, or statutory instruments, as not to possess the defining indicia of the law itself

Facts: MacMenamin J agreed with the judgment and order proposed in an appeal to the Supreme Court. However, he wanted to add a few observations. He held that the legislation which the court had been asked to interpret was drafted in an overly complex way. While he considered that the legislative intent was discernible as explained in McKechnie J’s judgment, the process of detailed consideration which the court had to give to the levy regime implicitly posed a question which may well have to be considered in another case; that question was as to whether some statutory provision, which in the future may fall for consideration by a court, is so unclear in its wording, or confusingly cross-referenced to other statutes, amendments, or statutory instruments, as not to possess the defining indicia of the law itself.

Held by MacMenamin J that neither public policy, nor benign purposes should stand in the way of legislative clarity.

MacMenamin J held that the appeal should be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT delivered the 4th day of June 2019 by Mr. Justice John MacMenamin .

1 I agree with the judgment and order proposed in this appeal. However, I would like to add a few observations.

2 The legislation which the court has been asked to interpret in this appeal is drafted in an overly complex way. The effect of the provisions upon which reliance is placed may, potentially, expose the appellants to a considerable financial liability, perhaps running into millions of Euro. While I consider the legislative intent is discernible as explained in McKechnie J.'s comprehensive judgment, the process of detailed consideration which the court has had to give to the levy regime implicitly poses a question which may well have to be considered in another case. That question is as to whether some statutory provision, which in the future may fall for consideration by a court, is so unclear in its wording, or confusingly cross-referenced to other statutes, amendments, or statutory instruments, as not to possess the defining indicia of the law itself.

3 Under Article 40.3.1. of the Constitution, the State guarantees in its laws to respect and as far as practicable by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. Article 40.3.2 provides the State shall in particular by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen. The term “ law” is used many times in the Constitution in terms which resonate with the ...