Greally v Minister for Education

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 February 1995
• Date: 27 February 1995
• Docket Number: [1994 No. 6571P]
• Court: High Court

High Court

[1994 No. 6571P]

Greally v. Minister for Education

Patrick Greally

Plaintiff

and

The Minister for Education, Ireland, The Attorney General and The Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland

Defendants

Case mentioned in this report:—

Deane v. The Voluntary Health Insurance Board [1992] 2 I.R. 319.

Competition - Dominant position - Undertaking - Redeployment scheme operated for purpose of finding replacements for second-level teachers - Agreement between trade union and schools management associations - Whether Minister for Education and trade union "undertakings" - Whether engaged in "trade" - Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 (No. 16), s. 1 - Competition Act, 1991 (No. 24), s. 3, sub-s. 1 and ss. 4 and 5.

Statute - Interpretation - Whether Minister for Education and trade union constitute"undertakings" - Whether defendants engaged in "trade" - Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 (No. 16), s. 1 - Competition Act, 1991 (No. 24) s, 3, sub-s. 1 and ss. 4 and 5.

Notice of Motion.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are set out fully in the judgment of Costello P. infra.

By plenary summons dated the 25th October, 1994, and a statement of claim delivered on the 4th November, 1994, the plaintiff sought inter alia, a declaration that the defendants in operating the supplementary panel scheme concerning the placement of second-level teachers were acting ultra vires ss. 4 and 5 of the Competition Act, 1991. In the statement of claim it was pleaded that the first and fourth defendants were both undertakings for the purposes of the Competition Act, 1991.

By notice of motion dated the 10th February, 1995, the fourth defendant sought an order striking out the plaintiffs claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or, in the alternative that it was frivolous or vexatious or constituted an abuse of process.

Section 3, sub-s. 1 of the Competition Act, 1991, defines an"undertaking" for the purposes of the Act as:—

". . . a person being an individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a service."

Sections 4 and 5 of the Competition Act, 1991, prohibit the operation of any anti-competitive agreement, decisions and concerted practices, and the abuse of a dominant position, which has as its effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in any goods or services within the State or any part of the State.

The plaintiff was a...