Malone Engineering Products Ltd. v. Health Service Executive
The plaintiff, the designer and manufacturer of “Freshwall” modular smoking rooms or structures, sought a declaration that its product was exempt from the indoor smoking ban because it qualified as an outdoor premises where no more than 50% of the perimeter is surrounded by one or more walls. The Freshwall structure is a specially designed four-sided, fully-roofed room composed of a series of panels which are 50% open. The court concluded that a Freshwall structure is not “outdoor” and the panels qualify as “walls” creating a continuous structure. Therefore, the structures were not exempt from the indoor smoking ban.
Malone Engineering Products Limited v. Health Service Executive, [2006] IEHC 307, High Court (2006).
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.
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke.
(See FCTC Art. 8)
Substantive Issues
None
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.
"First of all, it doesn't seem to me that this structure is outdoor; that it is, in very common sense, indoor. As I said, even going to the very basic point about having doors to get into a structure, it is called a structure in the pleadings, it is called a structure, it is called an indoor structure. The 50% panelling thing has got to be considered in two ways: First of all, is it, in fact, 50% panelling if you have fixtures to it? And then I am asked, well, I shouldn't really have to deal with the structures, and then we are away from the factual matrix and into what I said it seems to me that the court cannot deal with, but I have also got to consider the ventilating evidence that was given and the evidence that there was a baffling effect caused by the particular design of the structure. This is clearly in the promotional literature. Dr. Potter mentioned it and I think Mr. Buckley agreed that, clearly, the positioning of the particular panels was such as to at least reduce the harshest weather conditions; at most, to provide an indoor atmosphere. But even if I were to consider dealing with the declaration in relation to a structure other than the Kinsealy Inn, which clearly does not have 50% of air space and 50 percent of solid because of the -- because of the fixtures and fittings there to because of the positioning of the counter, the mirror, the radiators, even if I were to go and deal with the structure in abstract, which I said doesn't seem to me that the court can or should do, that it does seem to me that, on the common understanding of the words of 'outdoor', the common understanding of 'perimeter', the common understanding particularly of 'walls', that this is a wall, it presents as a wall and it presents as, indeed, a continuous structure, and that it does seem to me that, in dealing with the concept of having air coming in, albeit it baffled or muffled as it does come in, which, of course, does seem to me to actually reduce the airflow, not that that, as I said, is the criteria to be used, that it does seem to me that it is a wall and that it is outdoor. Finally, I should add that the section in the act does not -- the subsection in the act does not require the court to deal, in fact, with the areas, nor indeed with volume, and, because of that, then, the question of ventilation really doesn't arise. I mean, it may be a promotional matter, it may not be, but it doesn't seem to me that it is a matter which arises for the purpose of the interpretation of the section."
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 plaintiff, the designer and manufacturer of “Freshwall” modular smoking rooms or structures, sought a declaration that its product was exempt from the indoor smoking ban because it qualified as an outdoor premises where no more than 50% of the perimeter is surrounded by one or more walls. The Freshwall structure is a specially designed four-sided, fully-roofed room composed of a series of panels which are 50% open. The court concluded that a Freshwall structure is not “outdoor” and the panels qualify as “walls” creating a continuous structure. Therefore, the structures were not exempt from the indoor smoking ban.