The Gazette 1980

GAZETTE

DECEMBER1980

taking of samples by a veterinary

surgeon or by an officer of the

Minister of Agriculture authorised to

take samples.

At the hearing in the District

Court the District Justice was

satisfied that the Defendant had

failed to make an eligible animal

available for a brucellosis test which

was carried out by a Mr. O'Flaherty,

who, when called to give evidence,

stated that he was a veterinary

surgeon. He was not questioned

about this assertion nor was it

challenged nor was any evidence to

the contrary adduced by the

Defendant. At the conclusion of the

prosecution's case, counsel for the

Defendant contended that a mere

statement by the witness that he was

a veterinary surgeon was insufficient

proof, having regard to the terms of

the Regulations and the Act

applicable, of the fact that he was a

veterinary surgeon within the

meaning of the Act, nor was there

any evidence that he was an officer of

the

Minister

Agriculture

authorised to carry out the test.

Consequently,

the

Defendant

contended that the prosecution had

failed in an essential proof. The

District Justice then stated a case, he

being satisfied, that:

(i) the case made out against the

Defendant was that the requisite

sample was taken by a veterinary

surgeon within the meaning of

the Act, and,

(ii) the evidence adduced by the

prosecution in this respect was

Mr. O'Flaherty's statement that

he was a veterinary surgeon.

He sought the opinion of the High

Court, as follows:

(a) Was it necessary for the

prosecution to prove that the

necessary test was carried out by

a person lawfully qualified to

practice veterinary surgery in the

State?

(b) Was Mr. O'Flaherty's evidence

sufficient to establish a prima

facie case that he was a

veterinary surgeon?

(3) Was Mr. O'Flaherty's evidence

sufficient to establish a prima

facie case that he was lawfully

qualified to practice veterinary

surgery in the State?

The Court found that if Mr.

O'Flharty was not a veterinary

surgeon he would have commited an

offence when stating under Oath that

he was a Veterinary Surgeon. There

was a presumption against the

commission

crime.

This

presumption was rebuttable. The

Defendant did not challenge Mr.

O'Flaherty as to his qualifications

nor did he adduce evidence to the

contrary. The evidence by Mr.

O'Flahery that he was a veterinary

surgeon was prima facie proof of that

fact.

Held

(per Finiay J.) in answer to

the specific questions submitted:

(a) In the absence of proof of a

person authorised by the

Minister under the Regulations;

Yes.

(b) Yes.

The Minister of Agriculture v. John

Coneaimon

— High Court (per

Finlay, J.) 14 April 1980 —

unreported.

LABOUR LÁW — TRADE

DISPUTES

Trade Disputes Act 1906 — In order

to justify the picketing of a person's

premises there must be a sufficiently

discernible and close connection

between that premises and the trade

dispute. Two licensed premises pick-

eted in pursuance of a claim of re-

dundancy payments in excess of the

statutory entitlement. One of the

premises belonging to a personal rep-

resentative entitled to a small share in

the residue of the estate.

The Plaintiff, who was the owner

of a licensed premises in Inchicore,

Dublin, was one of the executors and

was entitled to one-twelfth share of

the residuary estate of a deceased

publican who had a licensed prem-

ises on Malahide Road, Dublin. It

was necessary to sell the premises on

Malahide Road for the purpose of the

administration of the estate of the

deceased and all the employees of the

Malahide Road premises were given

notice and paid the full redundancy

payment to which they were entitled,

but the employees also claimed they

were entitled to further payments

under the heading of "Disturbance

Claims Payments", which they

claimed was the custom in the

licensed trade. It was not claimed

that there was any

business

association between the Plaintiffs

premises in Inchicore and the prem-

ises on Malahide Road. The Plaintiff

brought proceedings against the

employee Defendants for an inter-

locutory injunction to restrain the

picketing of her own premises in

Inchicore on the grounds that there

there was no trade dispute between

the employees of the deceased

publican and the deceased's suc-

cessors in title.

Held:

(per McWilliam J.)

1. That there was a trade dispute

between the employees of the de-

ceased publican and his su-

cessors in title:

"It appears to me to be clear that

there is a trade dispute between

the employees of the late (de-

ceased) and his successors in

title whether the claim by the em-

ployees is sustainable under their

contracts of employment or is

reasonable on other grounds or

not, A dispute does not cease to

be a trade dispute within the

meaning of the Trade Disputes

Act, 1906 merely because the

claim by the employees appears

to be unreasonable. A "trade dis-

pute" within the meaning of the

Act is "any dispute between

employers

and

workmen"

. . . which is "connected with the

employment or non-employment

or the terms of the employment,

or with the conditions of labour,

of any person". This dispute is

between employers and workmen

and is connected with the terms

of the employment of the em-

ployees of the late (deceased).

The employees are claiming that,

in the licensed trade, on the ter-

mination of employment em-

ployees are entitled to substan-

tially more than the statutory re-

dundancy payments. This claim

may or may not be correct, but it

appears to me that it constitutes

a trade dispute within the

meaning of the Act".

2. However, that as there was not

at any time anv business con-

nection between the Inchicore

premises of the Plaintiff and the

Malahide Road premises of the

deceased and that the Plaintiff

had not at any time carried on

business in the Malahide Road

premises of the deceased or