Minister for Industry and Commerce v Healy [High Court.; Supreme Court.]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1941
• Date: 01 January 1941
• Court: Supreme Court

(H.C., S.C.),

Minister for Industry and Commerce

and

Healy

Conditions of Employment Act, 1936 (No. 2 of 1936), ss. 2 and 17 -Conditions of Employment (Men's and Boys' Tailoring) (Prohibition of Employment of Out-workers) Order, 1937 (No. 270 of 1937) - Practice - Procedure - Case Stated - District Justice stating case after summons dismissed - Case purporting, by error, to be stated under s. 83 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 - Error not formally rectified by District Justice - Case treated by consent as though stated under s. 6 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 - Appeal from decision of High Court - Leave to appeal not obtained from High Court - Whether jurisdiction to hear appeal - Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924), s. 83 - Courts of Justice Act, 1936 (No. 48 of1936), s. 56 - Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 (20 21 Vict. c. 43, s. 6.

Defendant was charged with being employed as an outworker in a prohibited form of industrial work within a prohibited area contrary to the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, s. 17, and the Conditions of Employment (Men's and Boys' Tailoring) (Prohibition of Outworkers) Order, 1937. "Outworker" is defined by s. 2 of the Act as "a person who for salary or wages does industrial work in his own home or in some other place not under the control or management of his employer on articles given out by, or provided at the expense of such employer for delivery to such employer or to some other person nominated by such employer after the doing of such industrial work." Defendant at her residence (within the prohibited area) made trousers in three styles for a tailoring firm who supplied her with the cloth and linings already cut out. She worked herself and, when she had sufficient work, employed her brother and sometimes a woman also. With each lot of material given to her was a ticket containing the necessary measurements and particulars to enable her to make the trousers and a space in which she put the price of each pair of trousers made by her or her employees. She was paid a different price for each style of trousers and these prices had been fixed originally by her deceased husband who had previously done the same work. Defendant brought back the finished garments and was usually then paid for the work she had done. On such occasions she was usually given more materials with tickets containing the necessary measurements and particulars. She always...