The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a Dublin headstone business owner who argued that the Dublin Cemeteries Committee acted beyond its statutory powers by manufacturing and selling headstones through a company it controlled.
In a judgment delivered by Macken J on 30 July 2009, the Court affirmed the High Court order dismissing the claim. It concluded that the Committee’s powers under the Dublin Cemeteries Committee Act 1970 included constructing and commercially selling headstones through the company. The Court’s decision addressed whether those activities were ultra vires; it did not determine the appellant’s broader complaints about the fairness or competitive effects of the business.
The appellant, David Pierce, traded as Swords Memorials and Andrew Pierce Monuments. He had operated a headstone design, construction and sales business from Swords since 1988. He sought declarations that the Committee and its company were not entitled to sell headstones commercially or prevent independent monumental sculptors from placing inscriptions, including in the Garden of Remembrance at Glasnevin Cemetery. He also sought injunctions and damages for an alleged breach of his constitutional right to earn a livelihood.
The High Court rejected the claim after finding that section 17 of the 1970 Act authorised the Committee to construct headstones and to sell property belonging to its undertaking. The appellant challenged that interpretation, arguing that the Committee’s statutory objects and the phrase restricting structures to cemetery use limited the power, and that a power to sell property did not authorise a commercial headstone business.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reading. It said the Act expressly empowered the Committee to construct headstones and gave it power to sell or otherwise deal with its undertaking property. It found no relevant restriction on selling headstones in the Act, while noting that the Act separately imposed restrictions on sales of land. The Court also rejected the argument that the 1970 Act could not extend the functions of the earlier committee, finding the construction and sale powers consistent with the Act’s cemetery-related objects.
The Court said the claim was limited to whether the Committee had acted beyond its powers by manufacturing and selling headstones through the company. It found that it had not and dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court order.