Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This case concerns the entitlement of the first named plaintiff ("the Company") to sell ready-made spectacles. The second named plaintiff ("Dr. Rynne") formed or set up the Company with a view to selling ready-made specs or reading glasses on a commercial basis. The first defendant (the Board) was established by the Opticians Act, 1956 to provide for the registration and control of opticians and other related purposes. The second defendant (the Minister) is the Minister referred to in the Act aforesaid. The Act of 1956 defines spectacles thus �
"Spectacles includes pince-nez, contact lenses and monocles but does not include sunglasses, goggles or similar articles".
Part VI of the Act of 1956 deals with the prescription and sale of spectacles and s. 49 in particular provides for restriction on selling spectacles in these terms:-
Subsection (4) of the section provides for the imposition of a fine on summary conviction of an offence under the section. At the hearing Mr. Hogan stated that amending legislation was imminent.
Since the hearing of this action, certain amendments have been made to the Act of 1956 by the Opticians (Amendment) Act, 2003 which in particular amended by substitution the definition of spectacles in this way �
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.