Judgment: 2006-05-11 · Court archive

High Court rules Dublin Cemeteries Committee can manufacture and sell headstones

High Court · [2006] IEHC 182

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • David Pierce
  • Dublin Cemeteries Committee
  • Glasnevin Cemetery Monument Works Limited
What

High Court rules Dublin Cemeteries Committee can manufacture and sell headstones

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Swords
  • Glasnevin Cemetery
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Before deciding the statutory issue, the court held that Pierce had sufficient standing to bring the proceedings. His complaint was not merely that he faced commercial competition, but that an allegedly unlawful activity by a statutory body was interfering with his business.

The High Court has ruled that the Dublin Cemeteries Committee has statutory power to manufacture and sell headstones, rejecting a challenge by monumental sculptor David Pierce to the legality of its commercial activities.

Pierce, who traded as Swords Memorials and Andrew Pierce Monuments, had operated a headstone and monumental sculpting business in the Dublin area since 1988. He challenged the committee and its wholly owned company, Glasnevin Cemetery Monument Works Limited, arguing that their sale of headstones and inscription services went beyond the powers granted by the Dublin Cemeteries Committee Act 1970.

The committee owned and managed cemeteries including Glasnevin, Palmerstown, Dardistown and Newlands Cross. Its monument company operated sales outlets at the entrances to those cemeteries, with cemetery registrars effectively acting as salespeople for its products and services.

Ms Justice Laffoy accepted that this arrangement gave the company a competitive advantage over other monumental sculptors. Pierce argued that this unlawfully interfered with his constitutional right to earn a livelihood.

Before deciding the statutory issue, the court held that Pierce had sufficient standing to bring the proceedings. His complaint was not merely that he faced commercial competition, but that an allegedly unlawful activity by a statutory body was interfering with his business.

However, the court rejected his central argument that the headstone business was ultra vires, meaning beyond the committee’s lawful powers. Section 17 of the 1970 Act expressly allowed the committee to construct headstones and also empowered it to sell property belonging to its undertaking.

The judge held that headstones manufactured by the committee formed part of that property and could therefore lawfully be sold. The Act did not limit the power to headstones used only in cemeteries owned by the committee.

The judgment dealt with liability only. Questions concerning damages or other relief were not determined at this stage.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review