Skibbereen Urban District Council v Quill

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Lynch
• Judgment Date: 15 January 1986
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 1498
• Date: 15 January 1986
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [1985 No. 504 SS],No. 504 S. S./1985

1986 WJSC-HC 1498

THE HIGH COURT

No. 504 S. S./1985

SKIBBEREEN UDC v. QUILL

BETWEEN

SKIBBEREEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL

COMPLAINANTS

AND

PATRICK QUILL, SHEILA COGGINS, PETER PAUL HORAN, NORBERTSKATIKATT AND TONY COGGINS

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

CASUAL TRADING ACT 1980 S1

CASUAL TRADING ACT 1980 S2(2)(h)

CASUAL TRADING ACT 1980 S3

CASUAL TRADING ACT 1980 S5

CASUAL TRADING ACT 1980 S9

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S52

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S52(2)

HALSBURY'S LAWS 4ED V29 PARA 623

HALSBURY'S LAWS 4ED V29 PARA 661

HALSBURY'S LAWS 4ED V29 PARA 662

HALSBURY'S LAWS 4ED V29 PARA 683

HALSBURY'S LAWS 4ED V29 PARA 684

INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 S11(a)

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Offence

Street trading - Exception - Held that defendant traded lawfully in Skibbereen within exception contained in s.2(2)(h) of Casual Trading Act, 1980 - ~See~ Market, authorisation - (1985/504 SS - Lynch J. - 15/1/86) - [1986] IR 123; [1986] ILRM 170

|Skibbereen U.D.C. v. Quill|

MARKET

Authorisation

Existence - Royal grant - Grant by Charles II in 1675 - Grantees authorised to hold markets for ever in Skibbereen on Wednesdays and Saturdays - Franchise acquired by complainant local authority in 1949 - Failure of complainant to hold markets pursuant to franchise - Nevertheless, collection by complainant of some tolls from persons trading on Saturdays - Defendants prosecuted under Act of 1980 for street trading in Skibbereen on Wednesdays - Act of 1980 containing exception in respect of persons trading pursuant to a "market right" conferred by a franchise - Franchise under grant of 1675 not extinguished by failure of complainant to hold markets - Failure of complainant not extinguishing rights of defendants to trade in accordance with franchise - Held that defendants were trading pursuant to a market right within the exception contained in s.2(2)(h) of Act of 1980 - Case stated by District Justice - Leave given for appeal to Supreme Court - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, s.52 - Casual Trading Act, 1980, ss.2, 3, 5, 9 -(1985/504 SS - Lynch J. - 15/1/86) - [1986] IR 123; [1986] ILRM 170

|Skibbereen U.D.C. v. Quill|

TRADE

Street trading

Legality - Whether offence under Act of 1980 - Exception to prohibited trading - Held that defendant traded lawfully in Skibbereen within exception contained in s.2(2)(h) of Casual Trading Act, 1980 - ~See~ Market, authorisation - (1985/504 SS - Lynch J. - 15/1/86) - [1986] IR 123; [1986] ILRM 170

|Skibbereen U.D.C. v. Quill|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Lynchdelivered the 15th day of January 1986.atbork.

2 This is a consultative case stated pursuant to section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961by the learned justice of the District Court assigned to District Number 18. The case is dated the 1st of August, 1985 and came for hearing before me in Dublin on the 2nd December 1985.

3 The case sets out the facts of the matter and concludes by asking five questions. There is annexed to the case so as to form part of it copies of the District Court Summonses issued against each of the defendants and also a translation of a grant of a franchise by King Charles II in the year 1675 to hold markets and fairs in the town of Skibbereen. This franchise was originally granted to William Prigg and Samuel Hale their heirs and assigns and was purchased from their successors in title by the complainants in the year 1949. The franchise authorised (inter alia) the grantees thereof to hold markets on every Wednesday and Saturday for ever "in or at the town of New Stapleton otherwiseSkibbereen". In addition it granted the right to receive tolls and other charges usually made at markets.

4 Since the year 1949 when they purchased the franchise the complainants have not themselves held or promoted any markets although between 1968 and 1972 they collected tolls from two persons trading in New Stapleton on Saturdays. The Summonses against the defendants relate to alleged offences contrary to section 3 and section 5 of the Casual Trading Act 1980on various dates in the summer of 1983. All these dates are in fact Wednesdays. While some of the defendants were at the material time holders of permits to trade issued by the complainants under the Casual Trading Act 1980 such permits did not operate to validate under the Act the trading engaged in by the defendants on the dates of the alleged offences at the places alleged.

5 The defendants in answer to the Summonses say that they were not engaged in casual trading within the meaning of the 1980 Act because they were selling at a market held in pursuance of a market right within the meaning of the exception to that effect in section 2, subsection (2) paragraph (h) of the 1980 Act. A market right is defined in section 1 of the Act as:-

"a right conferred by franchise or statute to hold a fair or market, that is to say, a concourse of buyers and sellers to dispose ofcommodities."

6 The complainants are entitled to the market right created by the franchise of 1675 and they say that they did not hold any market at any of the places on any of the dates the subject matter of the District Court Summonses. Although not availing of their market right the complainants have never sought to extinguish it pursuant to the provisions in that behalf contained in section 9of the Casual Trading Act 1980.

7 When a franchise to hold a market is created and a market is thereafter held for many years traders may build up a goodwill in the market such that their livelihood may become substantially dependent on the holding of the market. Can it be said that the owner of the market can destroy a trader's livelihood simply because he loses interest in the market and does not bother to hold it? In the case of Skibbereen there is...