Minister for Agriculture v Norgro Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Finlay
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1980
• Neutral Citation: 1978 WJSC-HC 3453
• Docket Number: No. 120 SS/1978,[1978 No. 120 SS.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1980

MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE v. NORGRO LTD

THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

Complainant

-and-

NORGRO LIMITED

Defendant

1978 WJSC-HC 3453

No. 120 SS/1978

THE HIGH COURT

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Finlaydelivered the 23rd day of July 1979 Mary P.O'Donoghue

2 This is a case stated by District Justice Joseph Plunkett pursuant to Section 52 of the Courts Supplemental Provisions Act 1961at the request of the Complainant the Minister for Agriculture.

3 It arises out of a complaint made by the Complainant against the Defendant Norgro Limited that the Defendant Company on the 30th of May 1977 at Dublin Corporation fruit market, East Arran Street in the City of Dublin and Dublin Metropolitan District did contravene Article 3(1) of Regulation (E.E.C.)No. 1035/72 in that they displayed for sale twenty-six two stone bags of carrots which failed to conform to the common quality standard for carrots prescribed by Annex 15 of Regulation No. 58 of the Commission of the European Economic Community dated the 15th of June 1970 as amended by Annex 111 of Regulation E.E.C. No. 51/65 contrary to Article 3 of the European Communities' Fruit and Vegetables Regulations 1973.

4 This complaint came before the learned District Justice by summons issued by the District Court Clerk for return on the 1st of February 1978. Upon the commencement of the hearing of the summons, Counsel on behalf of the Defendant company submitted that the learned District Justice had no jurisdiction to embark upon the hearing of the complaint upon the grounds that whereas the return date of the summons the 1st of February 1978 was more than six months later than the date of the alleged offence namely the 30th of May 1977 the summons did not bear on its face any note or record of the date upon which it had been issued by the District Court Clerk and that there was therefore no proof before the learned District Justice that the proceedings had been commenced within the time limited by paragraph 4 of Section 10 of the Petty Sessions Ireland Act 1851.

5 Counsel on behalf of the Complainant sought to adduce evidence that the Summons had in fact been issued within six months of the date of the alleged offence and relied upon an endorsement of service on the summons which indicated that it had been served upon the Defendant on the 4th of November 1977 and therefore within the period of six months.

6 Having heard argument the learned District Justice was oftheopinion that he lacked jurisdiction to enter upon the hearing of the summons and indicated that he proposed to strike it out. Counsel for the Complainant thereupon requested him to state a case for the opinion of the High Court and he agreed to do so. The question of law submitted to the High Court for determination by the learned District Justice is asfollows:

"Am I correct in law in holding that I have no jurisdiction to embark upon the hearing of a complaint brought before me by Summons issued in the first instance where the Summons does not disclose on its fact the fact that the complaint was made within the period of six months specified by paragraph 4 of Section 10 of the Petty Sessions Ireland Act...