The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by Dunnes Stores and declared the Statistics (Balance of Payments and Financial Accounts) Order 2005 ultra vires the power conferred by the Statistics Act 1993. The Court held that the order could not leave the Director General to choose among several reporting frequencies.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s refusal of judicial review relief. Dunnes Stores had sought a declaration that the 2005 Order was invalid and, if necessary, an order quashing it. The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Laffoy on 10 October 2014, addressed those reliefs and made the declaration. The judgment does not record an order quashing the instrument.
Under section 25(1) of the 1993 Act, the Taoiseach could prescribe by order requirements for persons and undertakings to provide information, including the information’s general nature, how frequently it must be provided, and who must provide it. Those powers had been delegated to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach. Article 6 of the 2005 Order said that information could be required monthly, quarterly, half-yearly or annually.
The High Court had concluded that this set a permissible range of periods, from which the Director General or a statistics officer could select when issuing individual requests. Dunnes Stores argued on appeal that the Minister of State had no power to give that choice to the Director General.
The Supreme Court agreed. It interpreted the statutory phrase “the frequency” as requiring the order to specify one rate at which information must be provided, rather than a menu of possible rates. The Minister of State therefore exceeded the authority delegated under section 25 by leaving the choice of frequency to the Director General, the Court held.
The dispute arose after the Director General directed Dunnes Stores to return quarterly forms about its group activities for balance of payments and national accounts statistics. The company did not return forms for the quarters ending 31 December 2006, 31 March 2007 and 30 June 2007. Six District Court summonses alleging offences under section 36 of the 1993 Act were issued on 10 October 2007. The Supreme Court judgment concerns the appeal in the judicial review proceedings; it does not state the outcome of those summonses.
The Court said European Union reporting obligations relied on by the respondents were peripheral to the statutory question it had to decide and did not consider them further.