P.J. Carroll & Co. Ltd. v. Minister For Health and Children

Tobacco companies and a tobacco industrial association challenged advertising restrictions in Ireland's tobacco control statutes, claiming violations of constitutional law, European Law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The High Court, sitting as the "Commercial Court," refused to allow the defendants/appellants to present evidence regarding the impacts of tobacco products on minors. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Commercial Court. In its analysis, the Supreme Court found that the case was not commercial in its essence, but constitutional. It therefore focused on the constitutional requirement that the advertising restrictions be proportional to their objectives and concluded that the defendants/appellants should have been permitted to provide oral evidence demonstrating the proportionality of the advertising restrictions.

P.J. Carroll & Company Limited, et al. v. Minister of Health and Children, Ireland, et al., [2005] IESC 26, Supreme Court of Ireland (2005).

  • Ireland
  • May 3, 2005
  • Supreme Court of Ireland

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Conor Fuller
  • Gallaher (Dublin) Limited
  • Gerry Lawlor
  • John Player & Sons Limited
  • Nan Nelle (Ireland)
  • P.J. Carroll & Company Limited
  • Reemtsma Cigarattenfabriken GmbH
  • Societe Nationale d'Exploitation Industrielle des Tabacs et Alumettes (SEITA)

Defendant

  • The Attorney General
  • The Minister for Health and Children, Ireland
  • The Office of Tobacco Control

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

None

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The order went on to rule out also evidence relating to the effect of advertising if an amended Reply was delivered admitting those effects. The appellants in cogent written and oral submissions point out that the litigation relates to alleged unconstitutionality of anti-smoking legislation and that notwithstanding the factual admissions referred to by Kelly J. the proportionality of the impugned measures is heavily in issue. They then go on to argue, quite rightly in my view, that they must be allowed adduce oral evidence relating to that issue. This seems to me to be obvious and does not require detailed analysis of authorities whether Irish, Canadian, EU or deriving from anywhere else. It is not in dispute that the respondents intend to adduce oral evidence at the hearing of this trial. At this stage it is not known what the nature of that evidence is. It may well emerge before the trial in that under O. 63A, r. 22 there is a prescribed procedure, unless the judge otherwise orders, providing for serving of written statements outlining the essential elements of evidence to be adduced. It would seem inconceivable that part of the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents will not be relevant to proportionality. At the very least it would be premature at this stage to rule out any particular evidence on behalf of the appellants on this matter."