[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Cartmill v. Donegal Co. Co. [1987] IEHC 12 (29 May 1987) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1987/1987_IEHC_12.html Cite as: [1987] IEHC 12

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Cartmill v. Donegal Co. Co. [1987] IEHC 12 (29 May 1987)\

The High Court

No. 1984/9

BERTIE CARTMILL

AND

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OP DONEGAL

Judgment of Mr. Justice Barron delivered the 29^th day of May 1987

On the 19^th December 1986 the Respondent passed a resolution rescinding the adoption of Part III of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 for the whole of its administrative area. The Respondent had by a resolution passed several years before adopted that part of the same Act for the same area. Both resolutions were passed pursuant to the provisions of Section

13 (1) of the 1956 Act which is as follows:

"13 (1) A local authority may by resolution adopt this Part in respect of the whole or a specified part of its administrative area and may by resolution rescind such adoption."

The resolution on the 19th December 1986 was passed by a simple majority. The Applicant contends that it is invalid because Standing Orders of the Respondent apply to the resolution and under Rule 66 of such Orders a simple majority is insufficient. The Respondent submits that the wording of the section should be construed as requiring only a simple majority. It further submits that Rule 66 did not apply to the resolution passed on 19th December 1986 but that, if it did, the provision requiring a loaded majority was ultra vires. Rule 66 of the standing Orders of the Respondent is as follows:

"66. No notice to rescind any resolution which has been passed within the preceding six months, nor any motion to the same effect as any motion which has been negatived within the preceding six months, shall be in order unless the notice thereof shall have been given and specified in the notice convening the meeting, and the notice shall have, in addition to the name of the member who proposes the motion, the names of five other members; A rescinding resolution shall not be passed unless not less than one half of the members are present and not less than two thirds of the members present and voting support the resolution. When any such motion has been disposed of by the Council, it shall be not be competent for any member to propose a motion that is substantially the same within a further period of six months."

Clearly this rule is an effort to prevent repeated discussions of identical resolutions. The resolution which is impugned did not rescind any resolution passed within the preceding six months. However, if it is a rescinding resolution as referred to in that rule then to be passed it required more than a simple majority. There seems to be no good reason to construe the expression "a rescinding resolution" other than by reference to the first part of the rule. Upon this basis, the impugned resolution not being a resolution brought to rescind a resolution passed within the preceding six months is not a rescinding resolution. It may therefore be passed by a simple resolution.

In these circumstances it is not necessary for me to consider the other submissions made. The relief sought will be refused.