Rahill v Brady

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date31 July 1971
Date31 July 1971
Docket Number[1969. No. 123 SS.]
CourtSupreme Court
(S.C.)
Rahill
and
Brady

Special event -Sales at livestock mart held twice weekly - Statute - Interpretation - Ordinary meaning of word -Appeal - Point of law - Question of law and fact - Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962 (No. 21), s.11, sub-s. 1.

Thomas Brady was the holder, as nominee, of a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor at an hotel in County Cavan. On application to the District Court he obtained an order authorising him to sell intoxicating liquor at a livestock mart, to which no licence was attached, in the town of Cavan on each Tuesday and Thursday in the month of April, 1969, when sales of cattle and pigs were to be held. The order was made pursuant to s. 11, sub-s. 1, of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, which enables a District Justice to make the order if he so thinks fit and if he is "satisfied that a special event" is to be held at premises to which no licence has been attached. Certain objectors were dissatisfied with the decision of the District Justice and they appealed by Case Stated to the High Court on the ground that the decision of the District Justice was erroneous on a "a point of law" because the bi-weekly sales in the livestock mart could not be special events within the meaning of s. 11 of the Act of 1962. The High Court (Butler J.) allowed the objectors' appeal and on further appeal by Brady it was Held. by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Budd and FitzGerald JJ.), in affirming the order of the High Court. 1, that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Mitek Holdings Ltd (Formerly known as Antigen Holdings Ltd) and Others v Companies Act
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 Mayo 2005
    ...OF INVESTIGATIONS COMPANIES ACT 1990 S150 COMPANIES ACT 1990 S150(4B) COMPANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT 2001 S56 RSC O.74 r46 RAHILL v BRADY 1971 IR 69 MAXWELL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 12ED COMPANIES ACT 1990 S150(4A) COMPANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT 2001 S41 COMPANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT 2001 S56(2)......
  • Doherty v Governor of Portlaoise Prison
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 Noviembre 2000
    ...V STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642 O'KEEFFE V BORD PLEANALA 1993 IR 39 MCGRATH V MCDERMOTT 1988 IR 258 RAHILL V BRADY 1971 IR 69 AG, PEOPLE V MCGLYNN 1967 IR 232 RAFFERTY V CROWLEY 1984 ILRM 350 NESTOR V MURPHY 1979 IR 326 LUKE V INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS 1963 AC ......
  • Health Service Executive (HSE) v PJ Carroll & Company Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 29 Marzo 2012
    ...2005 IESC 13 MAHER v BORD PLEANALA 1999 2 ILRM 198 1999/17/5078 O'BRIEN v MORIARTY (NO 2) 2006 2 IR 415 RAHILL & GOODE v BRADY 1971 IR 69 CRILLY v T & J FARRINGTON LTD & O'CONNOR 2001 3 IR 251 2000 1 ILRM 548 1999/6/1332 DODD & CUSH STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN IRELAND 2008 PUBLIC HEALTH (......
  • DPP v Robert Canavan
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 6 Febrero 2007
    ...High Court. I would not accept that proposition as prevailing in the present case as there is a Supreme Court decision Rahill v. Brady [1971] I.R. 69 to the effect that where there is a mixed question of law and fact which involves the construction of a statute then the court does have jur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT