Lennon v Ganly

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Justice O'Hanlon
• Judgment Date: 05 May 1981
• Neutral Citation: 1981 WJSC-HC 1828
• Court: High Court
• Date: 05 May 1981

LENNON v. GANLY AND FITZPATRICK

BETWEEN:-

JOHN V. LENON

Plaintiff

.v.

ROBERT GANLY AND ROBERT PITZPATRICK

Defendants

1981 WJSC-HC 1828

No. 4559P/1981

THE HIGH COURT

1 Justice O'Hanlondelivered the 5th day of May. 1981.

2 The Plaintiff in this case has caused a Plenary Summons to be issued and served in which the President and Secretary of the Irish Rugby Football Union are named as Defendants. By that Summons he claims certain declarations in relation to the forthcoming tour of South Africa by a team representing the IRFU and also an injunction restraining: the Defendants and such other members of the IRFU as will comprise the party for the proposed tour from using the name of Ireland to describe the said team of Rugby football players while in South Africa; from using the word "Irish" to describe the tour party or team; from bearing the tricolour of Ireland within South Africa, and from being present in South Africa at any place where the Iri3h National Anthem may be played or where the tricolour of Ireland may be displayed; fromadorningblazers, jerseys, football togs, stockings, boots, track suits or any other playing paraphernalia or items of apparel with any insignia, symbol or motif, such as the shamrock, which would be associated with the name of Ireland by the people of other nations.

3 In the present application for interlocutory relief the Plaintiff seeks an Order restraining the Defendants and other members of the IRFU pending the hearing of the Action from doing any of the things which the Plenary Summons seeks to restrain them from doing, and as the tour will, if it proceeds, take place in the next few weeks the effect of granting an interlocutory injunction at this stage would be to give the Plaintiff the substantive relief he seeks in the proceedings, so that interlocutor relief would in this sense become permanent relief.

4 The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants by going ahead with the tour notwithstanding opposition from the Government, and various political groups, trade unions and other sections of the community, are in breach of the Constitution; that a further breach of the Constitution arises by reason of the fact that Ireland has committed itself by Article 29 of the Constitution to the acceptance of the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States. In the course of the legal argument reference was mad to the fact that the policy of apartheid which has been pursued in SouthAfrica has been condemned by resolutions of the United Nations on many occasions, as well as by many States speaking in their individual capacities. It was suggested that by continuing with the tour, and by representing or holding out the team as an Irish team under the name of "Ireland1" a basic norm of international law which now condemns racial . discrimination was being infringed and the impression was being conveyed that Ireland in some way condoned or gave moral support to the policy of apartheid as implemented in South Africa.

5 The Plaintiff goes further, as indeed he must, if his Action is to succeed, and claims that his own personal rights under the Constitution are being infringed by the actions of the Defendants, in that the tour is detrimental to the common good, and will produce economic repercussions in the field of trade, and affect his right to travel in African countries which are opposed to apartheid; will harm his personal dignity as an Irish citizen, and affect him in other ways which are not capable of being adequately remedied by an award of damages should he ultimately succeed in his action.

6 The Defendants for their part say that the action of the IRFU in allowing the tour to proceed does not in any way signify approval on their part or on the part of the members of the IRFU of the concept of apartheid or of any part of the political regime in South Africa. Theycontend that there is reason to believe that the evils of racial discrimination are more likely to be alleviated by maintaining links with countries where it is practised and by applying moral pressure to bring about a change, instead of dividing the world into hostile camps by...