Irish Pharmaceutical Union & ors -v- Minister for Health and Children & ors [2010] IESC 23 (29 April 2010)

Irish Pharmaceutical Union & ors -v- Minister for Health and Children & ors [2010] IESC 23 (29 April 2010)

The Supreme Court held that the 1996 Memorandum and 1996 pharmacy contract replaced the 1971 arrangements, and there was no clear intention or legal basis for importing the advance payment terms from the 1971 Memorandum into the 1996 contract via Clause 19(3). The phrase 'terms agreed' in Clause 19(3) referred only to terms in the 1996 Memorandum, which did not mention advance payments. The continued administrative practice of advance payments did not create a contractual entitlement. The Minister did not breach any contractual obligation by discontinuing advance payments.

Citation
[2010] IESC 23
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Irish Pharmaceutical Union; Plaintiff/respondent: Mark Gouldson; Plaintiff/respondent: Gouldson Pharmacy Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Hunters Pharmacy Windy Arbour Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Belmire Limited trading as Britton’s Pharmacy; Plaintiff/respondent: Corr’s Pharmacy (Clonshaugh Limited); Defendant/appellant: Minister for Health & Children; Defendant/appellant: Ireland; Defendant/appellant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Incorporation of Terms, Collective Bargaining Agreements, Contract Interpretation, Privity of Contract, Administrative Arrangements
Contract Law Public Law Incorporation of Terms Collective Bargaining Agreements Contract Interpretation Privity of Contract Administrative Arrangements

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irish Pharmaceutical Union

Plaintiff/respondent

Mark Gouldson

Plaintiff/respondent

Gouldson Pharmacy Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Hunters Pharmacy Windy Arbour Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Belmire Limited trading as Britton’s Pharmacy

Plaintiff/respondent

Corr’s Pharmacy (Clonshaugh Limited)

Plaintiff/respondent

Minister for Health & Children

Defendant/appellant

Ireland

Defendant/appellant

Attorney General

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether terms of a collective bargaining-type memorandum (1971) were incorporated into individual pharmacy contracts (1996) via Clause 19(3)
  2. 2 Whether the Minister's unilateral withdrawal of advance payments breached contractual obligations to pharmacists
  3. 3 Whether the 1996 Memorandum and contract replaced the 1971 arrangements, extinguishing any entitlement to advance payments

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the 1996 Memorandum and 1996 pharmacy contract replaced the 1971 arrangements, and there was no clear intention or legal basis for importing the advance payment terms from the 1971 Memorandum into the 1996 contract via Clause 19(3). The phrase 'terms agreed' in Clause 19(3) referred only to terms in the 1996 Memorandum, which did not mention advance payments. The continued administrative practice of advance payments did not create a contractual entitlement. The Minister did not breach any contractual obligation by discontinuing advance payments.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • Declarations in favour of the plaintiffs set aside
  • No contractual entitlement to advance payments under the 1996 pharmacy contract