The Supreme Court has ruled that a Swords monument trader can continue an appeal challenging commercial activities linked to Dublin Cemeteries Committee and its Glasnevin monument business.
David Pierce, trading as Swords Memorials and Andrew Pierce Monuments, claims the Committee has no statutory power under the Dublin Cemeteries Committee Act 1970 to sell monuments or headstones, provide inscription services or carry on similar activities through Glasnevin Cemetery Monument Works Ltd.
Pierce says those activities are unfair to independent monumental sculptors and damage his business. The defendants deny the claim and argued, among other matters, that he lacked legal standing because other competition-law remedies were available.
Ms Justice Macken’s Supreme Court judgment of 28 May 2009 dealt only with that preliminary standing issue. It did not decide whether the Committee was actually acting beyond its legal powers.
The court examined three suggested alternatives: a complaint to the Irish Competition Authority, a private action under the Competition Act 1991 and a State-aid complaint to the European Commission.
The European Commission had already declined to continue a State-aid investigation. The Competition Authority had also considered complaints over several years and ultimately concluded that no further action should be taken because it did not regard the Committee as dominant in the relevant market or its conduct as contrary to competition law.
Macken J held that although a private competition action was theoretically possible, it was not a real alternative in the circumstances. Such litigation would be extremely expensive and would also address a different legal complaint.
Pierce’s case is that the Committee is exceeding powers granted by statute and thereby interfering with his constitutional right to earn a living. The court held he was entitled to frame his case that way.
The Supreme Court therefore found that no real alternative remedy existed under the Competition Act and allowed Pierce to proceed with his appeal on the substantive issues.