wtf is going on? Bizzarre
Both the first and second parts of the definition set out the boundaries inbetween which an interest could be deemed a pecuniary interest - one shouldn't be quoted without the other otherwise its incomplete.
People invest with a view to making a profit but they also appreciate it could also give rise to a loss. The fact that you buy at market value doesn't change this.
Because the second part is only there to disqualify the first not in addition to it. It means that if you have pension fund that is invested in the S&P500 you don't have to recuse yourself from any decision that might affect those companies (as an example).
And sorry, yes it is Australian, I mis spoke there, but it still doesn't back up your point. By definition purchasing something at market value doesn't give you an expectation of profit or loss.
That's the Australian definition and you're conveniently leaving out the second part of the definition.
Ah come off it. Now you're going to argue about what's meant by 'transaction team' in my hypothetical scenario.
He was part of the process. He clearly shouldn't have been.
No employer in the world would accept he was in that meeting and forgot his wife wanted to buy the property.
But in an employment situation Collins would have been long sacked for his other activities.
Maybe it wasn't a formal vote, but when the minutes say the members were in favour of the proposal then the members would have had to express that they were in favour, otherwise the minutes mis-represent what happened during the meeting.
The Members being in favour does not mean that there was a vote, more likely it went this way
It was proposed by one Councillor and Seconded by another Councillor
The Chair than asked if anyone had an objection to this proposal
With no objections the Chair said adopted and to proceed as outlined.
I think only an objection would have lead to a vote and during this vote Collins either had to vote or abstain from the vote.
He wasn't part of the transaction team. He should not have been either, but he wasn't so that's fine.
Even if we use the Canadian definition, there is no reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss from buying something at market value. This is a massive misunderstanding of both law and economics.
"pecuniary interest" is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated as provided in section 183.
Niall Collins had nothing to do with the sale of the lands to his wife.
Have you information to the contrary??
How did he interfere to arrange the lands were sold to her?
Wow, big shot. And yet 50% of solicitors are on the losing side.
I take it you're not a solicitor. I'm not claiming the definitions apply in Ireland, however, in the absence of a definition in Irish law and in respect of case law generally, Irish cases frequently follow England and Wales precedents. They are not legally binding in the same way as a superior Irish Court decision but are persuasive.
https://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/irish-system-in-context/#:~:text=Relationship%20with%20UK%20Laws&text=Because%20of%20the%20greater%20population,Court%20decision%20but%20are%20persuasive.
At this stage you're just a wind up kaymin.
You're opening refusing to accept what is being laid out clearly in front of you.
I'm out anyway, better things to do.
There are none so blind..,
I am interpreting the law as it is written and as I have been trained to do for almost a decade. I typically charge €450 an hour for this service. If you don’t like my interpretation, you are welcome to find another solicitor.
You mean to tell me if your wife was involved in a 150k transaction with your company, and you were part of the transaction team, they'd be fine with you not disclosing your relationship?
Or are you telling me it's fine the local government standards are as low as they are?
It's irrelevant whether the land was or was not bought at market value. The issue is in relation to the vote to dispose of the land that Niall Collins participated in.
No, literally, our courts have explained many times over the past several decades how statutory definitions in English/Canadian/other common law jurisdictions have no bearing on Irish law unless the same definitions exist in Irish statute. If you are upset by how our laws are drafted, talk to a TD. Otherwise, goodnight.
Yes, but it's not defined and you're making a massive leap with your interpretation which frankly makes no sense - even your explanation for why they might draft it in the way you suppose makes no sense.
Members must disclose a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in matters that are before Council for consideration. Although not defined in the Act, the dictionary defines pecuniary as "relating to money". The direct interest relates to the private members interest (directly profiting or losing money), while indirect interests are public. For example, a Councillor employed by the province indirectly has interest in the province (a public interest). Pecuniary interest of a spouse, child or parent of a member is also deemed to be an interest.
First of all it is clear that there is no direct pecuniary interest involved.
Secondly this interpretation would suggest that no councillor can vote on matters pertaining to the funding of the council itself which makes no sense so I do not think it is correct.
Thirdly, neither of these definitions apply to someone who has literally no legal connection to the land in question anyway. She had no direct or indirect pecuniary interest. Land bought at market value does not change your financial situation.
We only care about the definition for the purposes of section 177 of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended). How it is defined interpreted in other contexts is irrelevant. As for why it is drafted this way,I suppose it makes sense to draw particular attention to the possibility of someone gaining financially by selling goods/services/ assets to the council.
The minutes state 'The members were in favour of the proposal'.
It doesn't but practice in other jurisdictions can influence how our laws are effected. I quoted it because it provides a definition of pecuniary interest which is absent from Irish statute.
The facts and reality disagree with you.
Regards...jmcc
Not that it matters but the proposal per the minutes was 'Dispose of land at Patrickswell'. Obviously they need to agree on the price / preferred buyer etc which will require future motions / votes
So there is no definition of pecuniary interest in Irish statue then. You can make your argument all you want but ultimately that's the type of matter courts decide. If pecuniary interest is a form of beneficial interest then why not just draft the legislation with a reference to beneficial interest. Finally your interpretation of the term is at odds with how it is interpreted or defined around the world.
Just to be pedantic - there was no 'vote' - there was a motion which was proposed and seconded.
He thinks Australian statutory definitions are relevant in Ireland, and presents a county council website as an authority…
That vote was not an official vote to sell the land.
It actually was a vote on the proposal to propose to dispose of the land.
The Vote to sell to the land took in September 2008 before the full membership of Limerick County Council.
The 7 members of Bruff Area of Limerick County Council basically voted to move forward with the proposal. They did not vote to sell the land in 2007.
Reposting as some people refuse to read.
I haven't seen it posted and have read all of the posts on the thread. Why not re-post it and put it to bed for once and for all?
Well they are wrong. As the legislation is drafted, a pecuniary interest is a form of beneficial interest. This hangs to some extent on the word “other” in section 177 of the Act, but I will note that the word “interest” generally refers to equitable rights over property.
I don’t disagree with the spirit of what Cavan Monaghan CoCo is saying - but the standard they are setting goes beyond what the statute allows.
