Quinn's Supermarket v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1972 |
| Date | 01 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | [1968. No. 432 P.] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Trading -Ministerial order exempting Kosher-meat shops from restrictions on hours of trading applicable to other shops selling meat - Discrimination -Rules governing the eating of Kosher-meat an essential element of Jewish religion - Constitutional guarantees of free profession and practice of religion an' against discrimination on the ground of religious profession - Whether guarantees conflict - Victuallers' Shops (Hours of Trading on Weekdays) (Dublin, Dun Laoghaire and Bray) Order, 1948 (S.I. No. 175 of 1948), Arts.2, 4 - Shops (Hours of Trading) Act, 1938 (No.3), s. 25 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Articles40, 44.
The second plaintiff was the managing director of the first plaintiff which was the proprietor of a meat shop. The second plaintiff was being prosecuted in the District Court, on the complaint of the second defendant, for having kept the meat shop open in the evening of a weekday in contravention of an Order made in 1948 by the third defendant pursuant to powers vested in him by s. 25 of the Shops (Hours of Trading) Act, 1938. The Order of 1948 declared that it was unlawful for the proprietor of a meat shop in a certain trading area to open or keep the shop open on any weekday before 8 a.m. or after 6 p.m. (except for Saturday) or after 6.30 p.m. on a Saturday. It was not unlawful to open and keep open a meat shop for trade on a Sunday, and shops which sold only Kosher meat opened for a short period on Sunday mornings. The Order of 1948 exempted from the provisions of the Order the proprietors of meat shops in which only Kosher meat was sold. While the hearing of the complaint was still pending in the District Court, the plaintiffs issued a plenary summons in the High Court in which they sought a declaration that the Order of 1948 was invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution which state at Article 40, s. 1, that all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law; and which state at Article 44, s. 2, sub-s. 3, that the State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status. At the hearing of the plenary summons it was Held by McLoughlin J. that the Order of 1948 was invalid because (a) it effected a discrimination in contravention of the provisions of Article 44, s. 2, sub-s. 3, of the Constitution and (b) it was ultra vires the Act of 1938. On appeal by the defendants, and after further evidence, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prendergast v Higher Education Authority
...resolution was a reasonable one based upon a policy that was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Quinn's Supermarket v. Attorney General [1972] I.R. 1, Dillane v. Ireland [1980] I.L.R.M 167, The Planning and Development Bill 1999 [2000] 2 I.R. 321,MacMathúna v. Attorney General [1995] 1 I.R. ......
-
Bloomer v Incorporated Law Society of Ireland
...the analysis of the effect of Article 40.1 contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Quinns Supermarket v. The Attorney General (1972) I.R. 1 and, in particular, the following passage from the judgment of Walsh J. at page 13: "... this provision is not a guarantee of absolute equal......
-
The Employment Equality Bill, 1996
...S37(2) EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY BILL 1996 S6(3)(b) CONSTITUTION ART 40.1 CONSTITUTION ART 44.2 CONSTITUTION ART 40.2.2 QUINNS SUPERMARKET V AG 1972 IR 1 DPP V QUILLIGAN (NO 3) 1993 2 IR 305 MURTAGH PROPERTIES V CLEARY 1972 IR 330 MURPHY V STEWART 1973 IR 97 COX V IRELAND 1992 2 IR 503 UNFAIR......
-
Browne v Ag
...34 MADIGAN V AG & ORS 1986 ILRM 136 CONSTITUTION ART 40.1 GREEN & ORS V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1990 ILRM 364 QUINNS SUPERMARKET LTD V AG 1972 IR 1 FINANCE ACT 1982 S4(5)(b) FINANCE ACT 1982 S4(6) CAFOLLA V AG 1985 IR 486 Synopsis: REVENUE Income tax Assessment - Employment - Emoluments - B......
-
The Courts Make a New Friend? Amicus Curiae Jurisdiction in Ireland
...are concerned with the human rights of any person and to appear as such an amicus curiae on foot of such liberty being granted (which 42 [1972] IR 1, at 16, as cited by Whyte, op. cit., at 97. 43 [1970] IR 154, cited by Whyte, op. cit., at 97. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 [1999] 4 IR 99; [2000] 1 I......
-
Religious rights in historical, theoretical, and international context: Hobby Lobby as a jurisprudential anomaly?
...no religious perspective); Rutledge, supra note 5, at 24-40. (56.) One known exception exists. See Quinn's Supermarket v. Att'y Gen., [1972] I.R. 1 (Ir.); see also infra notes 165-69 and accompanying (57.) See Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2796-97 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). (58.) See id. at 2......
-
Is establishment consistent with religious freedom?
...University Press, 2002) at 909). On the state of the constitution prior to the amendment, see Quinn's Supermarket v. Attorney-General, [1972] I.R. 1 at 23-4, Walsh (31) See e.g. Gerhard Robbers, ed., State and Church in the European Union (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1996); Gerhard Robbers, ed., Ch......
-
Regulating Religious Function: The Strange Case of Mass Cards
...of doctrine or internal hierarchy within a religion to the exclusion of other claims, which itself appears to represent a novel legal 42 [1972] IR 1 [hereinafter Quinn’s Supermarket ]. 43 Ibid , p 25. 44 Ibid. 45 McNally , supra note 7, para 167. 3&4 HJ2010:Layout 1 27/05/2010 17:03 Page 68......