531 / 736
52 or 53 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as
amended by Sections 50 and 51 of the
Road Traffic Act, 1968, or
(c) attending to observe such proceedings
provided that where proceedings are conducted
in the town other than the town where the
solicitor has his principal office there should be
a reasonable addition for time and travelling
expenses. A proper report of the result of the
proceedings
should
be
prepared
by
the
solicitor.
2. A proper report of the proceedings means a
report giving the names of the witnesses with
a summary of the evidence given by each and
an appreciation of the effect of the evidence
on the question of civil liability for damages.
3. The minimum fee does not apply in cases of
exceptional difficulty or responsibility. Reas
onable additional fees should be paid in such
cases.
4. Members of the Society ought not to accept
instructions or furnish reports except on pay
ment of the adequate fees appropriate to the
circumstances in accordance with paragraph 1.
CURRENT LAW DIGEST SELECTED
In reading this digest, regard should
be had to the differences between
English
and
Irish
statute
law.
CONSTITUTION
Livestock Marts Act Upheld by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in a reserved judgment,
delivered on 27 July 1970, upheld an appeal by the
Attorney-General and reversed a judgment by the
President of the High Court in which he had held
that the Livestock Marts Act, 1967, was unconsti
tutional.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was deliv
ered by Mr. Justice Walsh and it contained an
elaborate examination of the powers of the Minister
for Agriculture under the Act and the safeguards
built into the Act against abuses of these powers.
It is considered that the judgment may have far
reaching effects in the whole field of administrative
law and particularly in those areas where discre
tionary powers
have
been
entrusted
by
the
Oireachtas
to Ministers and
to administrative
agencies or officers.
The court did hold to be unconstitutional eight
words in the Act—words which give the Minister
power to exempt from the application of the Act
"any particular business".
The action was brought in the High Court by
East Donegal Co-operative Livestock Mart Ltd.,
Raphoe, and others.
They claimed that the Act was repugnant to
Article 40 of the Constitution in that
(a) while providing that citizens generally may
not carry on a livestock mart without a licence
issued by the Minister, the Act, and in particular
Section 4, enabled the Minister if he saw fit to
grant exemption from the Act in respect of the
carrying on of any particular business and to
withdraw any such discretion at any time;
(b) The Minister, in the exercise of his powers,
could discriminate unfairly against some citizens
and, in particular, against the plaintiffs;
(c) The Act, and in particular Section 4, failed
to hold the citizens equal before the law in that it
failed to have regard to differences of capacity,
physical and moral, and of social function in the
citizens and purported to enable the Minister to
grant, withhold or withdraw exemption from the
provisions of the Act without having regard to
these matters.
They had also pleaded that under the Act the
Ministers, in granting, withholding or withdrawing
exemptions, might unjustly favour some citizens
and victimise others and they claimed that it sub
jected their property rights to the arbitrary dis
cretion of the Minister in a manner inconsistent
with the principles of social justice.
Delivering the judgment of the court on 27 July
1970, Mr. Justice Walsh said that in reality every
section of the Act had been challenged during the
course of the case. The President of the High
Court had made an order declaring that the licen
sing provisions of the Act were invalid having
regard to the provisions of the Constitution, and
the effect of this was to all intents and purposes
to render the Act impotent.
The Attorney General had appealed against the
order of the President on the grounds that the Act
was not in any respect invalid and that the plain
tiffs had not any
locus standi
to maintain the
proceedings on the grounds that they had not been
"aggrieved by the enactment of the said Act and
they have not suffered or been threatened with any
injury which entitled them or any of them to
challenge the said Act" on the ground that it is
invalid.