CRH Plc, Irish Cement Ltd & ors -v- The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission [2017] IESC 34 (29 May 2017)

CRH Plc, Irish Cement Ltd & ors -v- The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission [2017] IESC 34 (29 May 2017)

The Supreme Court held that while the CCPC had statutory authority to conduct searches and seizures under s.37 of the 2014 Act, the execution of the search and the blanket seizure and retention of all of Mr. Lynch’s email account, including irrelevant and privileged material, was disproportionate and failed to provide adequate safeguards for privacy rights as required by the Constitution and Article 8 ECHR. The absence of a statutory or procedural mechanism for timely segregation and return of irrelevant material, and the CCPC’s refusal to engage in such a process, rendered the actions unlawful. The High Court’s declarations and injunction were affirmed.

Citation
[2017] IESC 34
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: CRH Plc.; Respondent/plaintiff: Irish Cement Limited; Respondent/plaintiff: Seamus Lynch; Appellant/defendant: Competition & Consumer Protection Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Proportionality, Privacy Rights, Legal Privilege, Judicial Supervision, Retention of Seized Material, Ultra Vires Actions, Statutory Interpretation
Competition Law Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Data Protection Search and Seizure Proportionality Privacy Rights Legal Privilege +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CRH Plc.

Respondent/plaintiff

Irish Cement Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

Seamus Lynch

Respondent/plaintiff

Competition & Consumer Protection Commission

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCPC's seizure and retention of all of Mr. Lynch’s email account was lawful under s.37 of the Competition & Consumer Protection Act, 2014 and consistent with constitutional and ECHR privacy rights.
  2. 2 Whether the procedures adopted by the CCPC were proportionate and provided adequate safeguards for irrelevant and privileged material.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was correct in granting declarations and injunctions restraining the CCPC from reviewing all seized material.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while the CCPC had statutory authority to conduct searches and seizures under s.37 of the 2014 Act, the execution of the search and the blanket seizure and retention of all of Mr. Lynch’s email account, including irrelevant and privileged material, was disproportionate and failed to provide adequate safeguards for privacy rights as required by the Constitution and Article 8 ECHR. The absence of a statutory or procedural mechanism for timely segregation and return of irrelevant material, and the CCPC’s refusal to engage in such a process, rendered the actions unlawful. The High Court’s declarations and injunction were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court decision affirmed
  • Declarations granted that CCPC acted ultra vires in seizing and retaining irrelevant material