By Tom Arden
The High Court has refused a State application to move a major tobacco-industry challenge to public health legislation out of the Commercial Court after more than a year of case management.
The proceedings were brought by tobacco companies including PJ Carroll and Company Limited and John Player and Sons Limited against the Minister for Health and Children, Ireland, the Attorney General and the Office of Tobacco Control.
The plaintiffs are challenging provisions of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002, its 2004 amendment and 2003 EU tobacco regulations. They allege invalidity under the Constitution, European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The merits of those claims were not decided in this ruling.
The case entered the Commercial Court list in June 2004. Since then, pleadings had been exchanged, issues identified and summaries of expected evidence prepared under court directions.
The defendants later asked that the case be transferred to the Chancery list. They relied on its constitutional character, complexity, expected trial length and concerns that a hearing might be fixed too quickly. They also pointed to observations made by the Supreme Court questioning whether placing the case in the Commercial Court had been wise.
Mr Justice Kelly rejected those arguments.
He held that complexity was a reason supporting, rather than undermining, Commercial Court case management. The same applied to the expected length of the trial. He also rejected concerns about excessive speed, noting that no trial date had been fixed and that the defendants themselves had previously indicated that their experts could be made available with sufficient notice.
The judge treated the Supreme Court comments with respect but noted they were made without the issue having been argued and without the detailed evidence originally placed before the High Court.
Kelly J also stressed the practical consequences of moving the case. Significant work had already been completed under the Commercial Court procedures, while the defendants could identify no concrete disadvantage in remaining there.
The motion to transfer the proceedings was dismissed.