Health Service Executive v. St. Johnston Taverns Ltd. & Ors.
The Health Service Executive is appealing a lower court ruling in favor of the owners and operators of an inn charged with violation of the indoor smoking ban. The area in question was a wooden structure that had been erected in the courtyard area and designated as the smoking area. At issue were whether the area is “outdoor” and whether less than 50% of the perimeter is surrounded by walls. The structure was attached to the building on two sides and covered by a clear, acrylic roof which overlaps with the guttering attached to the building. There were small gaps (~300 mm) between the other two sides of the structure and the courtyard building wall. The lower court held that more than 50% of the perimeter of the smoking area was not surrounded walls or similar structures, and that the distance between the edge of the smoking structure and the building wall was immaterial. The High Court overturned the lower court’s decision, holding that the area was not “outdoor” but instead was entirely enclosed and essentially “a room within a room.” Therefore, the area was not exempt from the smoking ban.
Health Service Executive v. St. Johnston Taverns Limited & Ors, [2013] IEHC 69, High Court (2013).
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
A claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Having regard to the foregoing and the description of the premises contained in the Case Stated and in the Appendices thereto, it is apparent in the present case that the smoking area situate to the rear of the Fishermans Inn is not outdoor. The “pagoda” is entirely enclosed by the stone walls. The existence of these stone walls and the extent of the roof overhanging the structure makes it impossible to describe the smoking area as either “outdoor” or that not more than “fifty per cent of the perimeter is surrounded by one or more walls or similar structures”. Consequently, I agree with the description of it as effectively being “a room within a room” (at para. (g) of the Case Stated).The legislature clearly and expressly applies the exemption to an outdoor part of the premises where not more than 50% of the perimeter of the part, is surrounded by walls or similar structures. Therefore, the smoking area of the Fishermans Inn does not meet the statutory criteria and as such falls foul of the exemption provided for in s. 47(7)(d) of the Act of 2002, as amended."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The Health Service Executive is appealing a lower court ruling in favor of the owners and operators of an inn charged with violation of the indoor smoking ban. The area in question was a wooden structure that had been erected in the courtyard area and designated as the smoking area. At issue were whether the area is “outdoor” and whether less than 50% of the perimeter is surrounded by walls. The structure was attached to the building on two sides and covered by a clear, acrylic roof which overlaps with the guttering attached to the building. There were small gaps (~300 mm) between the other two sides of the structure and the courtyard building wall. The lower court held that more than 50% of the perimeter of the smoking area was not surrounded walls or similar structures, and that the distance between the edge of the smoking structure and the building wall was immaterial. The High Court overturned the lower court’s decision, holding that the area was not “outdoor” but instead was entirely enclosed and essentially “a room within a room.” Therefore, the area was not exempt from the smoking ban.