Dunnes Stores v Revenue Commissioners
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | Supreme Court |
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] |
Date | 04 June 2019 |
AND
[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.
I agree with the judgment and order proposed in this appeal. However, I would like to add a few observations.
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.
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 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Amanda Magret Landsberg and Eben Arnoldis Breetzke v Road Safety Authority, The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the Attorney General Ireland
...v. Whillock [1993] 1 IR 231); ‘every word or phrase, if possible, should be given effect to’ ( Dunnes Stores v. Revenue Commissioners [2019] IESC 50 at para. 66). 55. The usual application of the maxim expressio unius would support this conclusion. In Rodis Humphreys J. said (at para. 30): ......
- M v The Minister for Foreign Affairs
-
The People (At the Suit of the DPP) v Vincent Banks
...a taxing statute are interpreted today without regard to their overall context and object (see Dunnes Stores v. The Revenue Commissioners [2019] IESC 50, [2020] 3 IR 480 and Bookfinders Ltd. v. The Revenue Commissioners [2020] IESC 62 . It is not hard to find fragments in the case law favou......
-
Heather Hill Management Company CLG & McGoldrick v an Bord Plean?la, Burkeway Homes Ltd and the Attorney General
...decisions are now Brown; Minister for Justice v. Vilkas [2018] IESC 69, [2020] 1 IR 676; Dunnes Stores v. The Revenue Commissioners [2019] IESC 50, [2020] 3 IR 480; Bookfinders Ltd. v. The Revenue Commissioners [2020] IESC 60; and The People (DPP) v. AC [2021] IESC 74, [2021] 2 ILRM 305 (‘ ......