A local government conducted test purchases by children from cigarette vending machines. The tobacco company that owns the vending machines argued that it could not be liable under a particular section of the law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to children by “persons”. The court ruled that the law’s use of the word “person” could include a company and that the tobacco company could be liable under this provision of the law.
London Borough of Merton v. Sinclair Collins, Ltd., 2010 EWHC 2089 (Admin) (2010).
United Kingdom
Nov 5, 2010
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, The Administrative Court
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
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.
Measures restricting tobacco sales to or by minors, as well as other retail restrictions relating to point-of-sale, candy and toys resembling tobacco products, vending machines, or free distribution.
(See FCTC Art. 16)
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.
"In 1908, as now, the Interpretation Act, then 1889, now 1978, defines "person" as including, "unless the contrary intention appears", "a body of persons corporate or unincorporate". The contrary intention obviously appears in relation to the second use of "person". A body of persons corporate or unincorporate cannot be under the age of 16/18. The person to whom the tobacco is sold, therefore, must be a real human being under the age of 16/18. It does not follow that the person referred to in the first instance must also be an individual. The draftsman in 1908 would have had in mind the express provision in the 1889 Act in section 2(1): "In the construction of every enactment relating to an offence punishable on indictment or on summary conviction ... the expression 'person' shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include a body corporate." Nothing could be clearer. Indeed, it is difficult to understand a policy reason why the draftsman or Parliament should have wished to exclude an incorporated body from those who might commit an offence under section 7(1). Had they done so then every tobacconist in the country who wished to continue selling cigarettes to children would have incorporated a company to carry on his business."
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.
A local government conducted test purchases by children from cigarette vending machines. The tobacco company that owns the vending machines argued that it could not be liable under a particular section of the law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to children by “persons”. The court ruled that the law’s use of the word “person” could include a company and that the tobacco company could be liable under this provision of the law.