Statutory body not empowered to require proof of ongoing competence when granting or renewing quarrying licenses

High Court - plaintiff seeks declarations that he has continuing right to registration card issued by defendant body relating to persons involved in quarrying industry - plaintiff says defendant does not have an entitlement to place a restriction on the duration of the card or require proof of continuing competence - plaintiff says defendant does not have the entitlement to require the plaintiff to undergo re-assessment for issuing of card - whether defendant is entitled to limit duration of registration cards - whether defendant is entitled to impose a requirement as to self-assessment or re-assessment on renewal of a registration card - statutory interpretation - court finds that although there is no express requirement in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Quarries) Regulations limiting duration of registration card, there is a requirement for photograph of card holder - court finds that it is implied that photograph must be reasonably up to date and, accordingly, it is implied that the defendant has the right to limit duration of lifetime of registration card - court finds that the relevant legislation deals separately with qualifications and competence - the registration cards are available to those who have the necessary FETAC qualification and the job of administering the issuing of cards falls to the defendant - the job of monitoring whether persons who have registration cards remain competent at quarry work does not fall to the defendant under the relevant regulations - court rejects defendant's argument that the overall purpose of the Regulations means that it is implied that the defendant has the power to demand ongoing proof of competence - court cannot act as policy maker - court notes that while one purpose of legislation is health and safety, there are clearly others - defendant also raises procedural objections: lack of standing of plaintiff; mootness and the rule in Henderson -v- Henderson - court finds that the defendant's procedural points fail in limine because they were not pleaded - in alternative court rejects the substance of the points - mootness argument falls firstly because court finds that as the plaintiff will have to self-assess, it is not moot - alternatively, matter relates to time limited process that is clearly likely to recur - also alternatively, it is in public interest that determination be made by court - court also rejects that defendants argument that the plaintiff lacks standing - although plaintiff qualifies for registration card under conditions at present, this does not mean he will do so in the future - court rejects Henderson -v- Henderson point - that authority does not prevent successive litigation on different issues - issues in these proceedings could not have been raised in plaintiff's previous actions against the defendant - court grants declaration that defendant is not entitled to impose a requirement that the plaintiff either self-assess or be assessed or reassessed in relation to having undergone any particular practical experience.