Previous Page  130 / 274 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 130 / 274 Next Page
Page Background

GAZETTE

AUGUST 1976

A MEETING OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY

Part 1

Paper delivered by T. S. Smyth Esq., B.L., former Assistant

Secretary of the Society, to the Society of Local Authority

Solicitors in May 1975.

Beginning with the assumption of entitlement and

obligations of a local authority to hold meetings, I

treat of "a local authority" as a municipal authority.

BEFORE THE MEETING

The Notice

The statutory position is that by virtue of Section 92

of the Municipal Corporations Ireland Act, 1840

notice is required (which I will refer to as "the Public

Notice") of the time and place of a meeting; but does

not require that there be any notice of the business

of the meeting. This is so where the meeting is sum-

moned in the ordinary way. The Public Notice is to be

signed by the Mayor Chairman and to be fixed on or

near the door of the City or Town Hall at least three

clear days before the meeting.

The Section provides for an alternative summoning

of a meeting on requisition of five members, and in

the case of such a meeting, if the Authority refuses

or fails to call the meeting and the five members

exercise their own right to call the meeting, in such

circumstances they must give public notice of the

business proposed.

The section further requires that a Summons to

attend the Council or Board be delivered to each

member, and such Summons shall specify the business

of the meeting (to wit, the Agenda).

Section 61 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1955

(No. 9 of 1955) provides that the Minister may by

regulations make provision in relation to all or any

local authorities with respect to (inter alia) the sum-

moning and holding of meetings. However, regulations

or standing orders (of which more anon) are limited

in that they must be made pursuant to and for the

purposes of the Act or Acts and they must (a) not be

repugnant to any statutory provision in the Act or any

Act incorporated by reference and (b) they must not

be repugnant to the general law — whether Statute

Law or Common Law or particularly Constitutional

Law.

THE AGENDA

In relation to the Agenda, the only business a

member has an actual legal right to set down is a

motion in relation to business concerned with the

purposes, duties and powers of the local authority as

conferred or imposed on it by law. The only notice

of motion which the Manager (Secretary or Town

Clerk) is obliged to accept is a motion relating to a

matter in respect of which a member has an actual

legal right to set down. The use of a local authority

meeting as a forum of debate for matters of public

interest, however grave, urgent or praiseworthy which

is completely dissociated from the purposes, duties

and powers of the particular local authority is not

compellable business. Neither Bye-Laws, Regulations,

direction or Standing Orders can enlarge the duties of

publication so as to confer protection outside the

obligations of the Statute. When considering the legal

position as to defamation the recognition of these

limits is all important.

Generally where there is a legal duty imposed by

Statute to publish certain matters, then the publication

is privileged. In relation to any publication made

pursuant to a legal duty, whether the duty be imposed

by Statute or by some person exercising a legal power

to impose it, the law of privilege applies (subject to

the absence of malice on the part of the person pub-

lishing it).

There are three cases which illustrate the matters

which have already been mentioned:—

Andrews v. Nott Bower (1895) I Q.B. 888.

The magistrates of a Borough, for the purpose of

facilitating the business of the General Annual Licen-

sing Meeting, ordered the defendant, who was Head

Constable of the Borough, to issue to persons having

business before the meeting copies of a Report made

by him to the Magistrates stating the grounds of

objections taken to the renewal of licences.

Held, that publication by him of the Report in

pursuance of the Magistrates' order was upon a privi-

leged occasion, and therefore that, in the absence of

actual malice on his part, an action was not main-

tainable against him in respect of grounds of objection

so published, which the plaintiffs alleged to be a libel

upon them.

De Buse & Ors. v. McCarthy & Ors. (1942) 1 K.B. 156

The defendants in this case were the Town Clerk of

Stepney and the Borough Council. They had pub-

lished a report, which was tabled for consideration at

a forthcoming meeting of the Borough Council and

they had, as was normal practice, circulated the

Agenda and the business to be considered, including

a copy of a Report, to the Public Libraries in their

jurisdiction. It was found by the Court that their

mandatory public duty was limited to giving notice

by posting it on or near the door of the Town Hall

and transmitting it by post to the members. Lord

Greene, Master of the Rolls, pointed out that the

mandatory duty did not include any obligation to

post the notices of business in the public libraries. He

further stated that the defence of a public duty did

not bear examination so far as circulation to the

public libraries was concerned since the material

statutes imposed no obligation to do so.

The defence of privilege of statutory obligation to

publish is available, therefore only in respect of:—

(i) Motions concerned with purposes, duties and

powers of the local authority, and

(ii) The limited publication of the Public Notice

affixed to the City or Town Hall and the

sending by Summons to the members.

Adam v. Ward (1917) A.C. 309.

This is a case that is invoked with regularity in a

great variety of cases of defamation both of libel and

slander. It treats of that element of privilege, said to

protect him who, on a privileged occasion publishes

defamatory matter in a situation where the person

who publishes the defamatory matter has an interest

or duty, legal, social or moral to make it to the person

to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is

made has a corresponding duty to receive it. This

reciprocity is essential. The question as to whether

the defence of privilege applies or not involves two

considerations, (a) the subject matter of the motion,

and (b) the persons to whom it is addressed, i.e. the

131