The Gazette 1967/71

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. 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. CURRENT LAW DIGEST SELECTED In reading this digest, regard should be had to the differences between English and Irish statute law.

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.