Today, Mr Justice Madden delivered the judgment of the Commission in the case mentioned above, which had previously been heard by Lord Justice Madden, Sir Frederick Peel, and Viscount Loughborough, the Commissioners. The case involved a dispute between Bannatyne & Son, a milling and corn merchant business in Limerick, and The Great Southern and Western Railway Company.
The complaint centred around allegations that the railway company, through Henry R. Glynn, provided an unfair advantage to certain competitors, including Mr Glynn himself, who was involved in shipping and steamboat operations. While separate accounts were maintained for the two businesses, the evidence indicated that Mr Glynn, as an individual, was closely associated with the shipping business and had a significant influence on it.
The Shannonside Steamship Company, connected to Mr Glynn, operated as a dock company and was managed by him. Despite separate accounts, it was clear that Mr Glynn benefited personally from the company’s operations. The improved maritime communication resulting from his efforts had proven successful and beneficial to the district and the railway company. There was no unreasonable aspect to the arrangement between Mr Glynn and the railway company, as he was entitled to compensation for his services.
The focus of consideration was whether the specific mode in which Mr Glynn’s remuneration was granted conferred an undue advantage in dealings with Bannatyne & Son, warranting a complaint. Under the agreement, Mr Glynn received certain benefits from the railway company, including rebates on goods carried, while Bannatyne & Son paid a higher rate for carriage. It was deemed that the advantage granted to Mr Glynn did not result in Bannatyne & Son receiving less favourable terms than they would have obtained otherwise.
The decision reached did not disturb the overall relationship between the railway company and Mr Glynn, which was deemed advantageous for all parties involved. The objection solely pertained to the specific method of compensation, and it was hoped that a more equitable method of assessment would be devised in the future. The judgment did not impact the beneficial aspects of the agreement between the railway company, Mr Glynn, and the district served by the steamers.
The legal proceedings concluded with the injunction being granted, focusing on the particular mode of remuneration while recognizing the overall advantages of the arrangement. Counsel for Bannatyne & Son included Mr Roman, KC, Mr Gordon, KC, MP, and Jonathan Pim, instructed by Messrs. A. and L. Goodbody. The Solicitor General, Mr Jellett, and Mr H.R. Cloake represented the railway company, instructed by Messrs. Barrington and Co.
Dublin Evening Telegraph – Friday 29 July 1904
