Flynn and Others v Courts Service & Judge O Buachall

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hedigan
• Judgment Date: 02 November 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 499
• Docket Number: [No. 1035 JR/2009]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 02 November 2010

[2010] IEHC 499

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1035 JR/2009]

Flynn & Ors v Courts Service & Judge O Buachalla

BETWEEN

JOHN G. FLYNN, DECLAN JOYCE, MARTIN G. LAWLOR AND PAUL A. ROGERS

Applicants

AND

THE COURTS SERVICE AND JUDGE DONNCHADH O BUACHALLA

Respondents

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S26(1)(G)

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S27(1)(B)

MULCREEVY v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 2004 1 IR 72

LANCEFORT LTD v BORD PLEANÁLA (NO.2) 1999 2 IR 270

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S26(1)

COURTS ACT 1971 S16

O'BRIEN v JUDGE O'HALLORAN & DPP & ORS 2001 1 IR 556

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S26

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S27

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S27(3)(B)

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S21(C)

MULCREEVY v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 2004 1 IR 72

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION v DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL 2005 2 IR 496

CASEY v MIN FOR ARTS 2004 1 IR 402

COURTS OFFICERS ACT 1926 S65

RYAN v COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1997 1 ILRM 194

RSC 0.84 R20(4)

CAHILL v SUTTON 1980 IR 269

MULCREEVY v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 2004 1 IR 72

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION v DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL 2005 2 IR 496

COURTS SERVICE ACT 1998 S29(1)

COURTS OFFICERS ACT 1926 S65(2)

COURTS

District Court

Jurisdiction - Transfer of sittings - Temporary court house - Objection by local solicitors - Locus standi - Whether sufficient interest - Breach of constitutional right to earn livelihood - Public interest - Involvement in consultation process - Whether correct procedure invoked for valid transfer - Claim that decision administrative in nature and within jurisdiction of Courts Service - Statutory procedure to be followed - Whether District Court judge acted outside jurisdiction - Statutory framework - Whether power to transfer all business to court house in separate district court area - Inherent jurisdiction to make arrangements for sitting of court - Mulcreevy v Minister for Environment [2004] 1 IR 72; Lancefort Limited v An Bord Pleanála (No 2) [1999] 2 IR 270; O'Brien v O'Halloran [2001] 1 IR 556; Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council [2005] 2 IR 496; Casey v Minister for Arts [2004] 1 IR 402 and Cahill v Sutton [1980] IR 269 considered - Courts of Justice Act 1953 (32), s 26 - Relief refused (2009/1035P - Hedigan J - 2/11/2010) [2010] IEHC 499

Flynn v Courts Service

Facts: The applicants were solicitors practising in New Ross District Court area. An order of certiorari was sought to quash the decision of the respondent to transfer the sitting of New Ross District Court to a temporary Court House in Wexford in addition to a declaration that the transfer was in breach of the Courts of Justice Act 1953 and an order of mandamus was sought requiring the respondent to acquire premises within the New Ross District Court area or within one mile thereof. The issue arose as to locus standi and jurisdiction and whether the powers of a District Court judge to adjourn of transfer a case extended only to business immediately before the Judge.

Held by Hedigan J. that the Court was satisfied that the applicants were not entitled to the reliefs sought. The applicants had the requisite locus standi to challenge the decision made. The District Judge was exercising an inherent jurisdiction to make arrangements for the sitting of his Court in addition to his powers under the Act of 1953. The move was a temporary one, albeit one which would last a few years.

Reporter: E.F.

Mr. Justice Hedigan

1 By order of Ryan J. dated the 12^th day of October, 2009, the applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review of a decision allegedly taken by the first named respondent. The applicant subsequently sought and obtained leave to join the second named respondent to the proceedings on the 16^th February, 2010. The reliefs sought include the following grounds:-

2 i i. An order ofcertiorari by way of application for judicial review quashing the decision of the respondent made on or about the 11^th day of June 2009 to transfer the sittings of New Ross District Court to the temporary Court House at Ardcavan, Wexford.

3 ii ii. A declaration that the purported transfer of the sittings of the New Ross District Court to the temporary Court House at Ardcavan, Wexford amounts to a breach of the provisions of section 26 (1) (g) of the Courts of Justice Act1953.

4 iii iii. An order ofmandamus requiring the respondent to acquire a premises within the New Ross District Court area or within one mile of its boundary for sittings of New Ross District Court.

5 2 2.1 The applicants herein are solicitors practising in the New Ross District Court area. The first named respondent is the independent corporate organisation established by the Courts Service Act 1998 to manage the administration of the court system in Ireland. The second named respondent is the District Court Judge assigned to the Wexford District at the time the subject matter of these proceedings arose. The second named respondent is not participating in these proceedings.

6 3 2.2 These proceedings arise out of a challenge to the decision of the second named respondent to transfer the business transacted in the New Ross District Court area from a temporary court house located in that area to another temporary court house on the outskirts of Wexford town in Ardcavan (hereinafter referred to as "the temporary Wexford District Court"). The court house in New Ross was built in approximately 1832 and was closed for renovation in 2005. Since its closure, the first named respondent leased the Geraldine O'Hanrahan's G.A.A. Club House for sittings of the New Ross District Court (hereinafter referred to as "the temporary New Ross District Court"). This location provided a temporary venue for the court sittings on foot of the closure of New Ross District Court House. The preliminary issue of delay has been abandoned by the respondent.

7 4 2.3 On the 11^th June, 2009, the first named respondent advised the Secretary of the County Wexford Solicitors Association that New Ross District Court would sit at the temporary Wexford District Court in Ardcavan with effect from the 30^th August, 2009. Discussions ensued between the first named respondent and various interested parties, including at least one (if not more) of the applicants, concerning this transfer of business from the temporary New Ross District Court. By letter dated the 8^th September, 2009, the first named respondent confirmed the change of venue and the sittings for New Ross District Court were thereafter transferred to the temporary Wexford District Court. The Wexford District comprises four district court areas including both the New Ross and Wexford district court areas.

8 5 2.4 In the Statement of Opposition, delivered on the 14^th December, 2009, it was alleged that no decision had been taken by the first named respondent to transfer the sittings of the temporary New Ross District Court. The first named respondent asserted that it was not the appropriate respondent to the application for judicial review as the decision had been made by the District Court Judge assigned to the district court area of New Ross pursuant to s. 27 (1) (b) of the Courts of Justice Act 1953. In the light of this assertion in the Statement of Opposition the applicants sought and obtained leave to join the District Court Judge as the second named respondent.

9 2 3.1 The applicants' submissions focussed on two issues; (i) the issue of locus standi and (ii) the issue of jurisdiction.

Locus Standi

10 Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Maher S.C., submitted that the applicants had the requisite sufficient interest in the matter before the court. He argued that the applicants' issued these proceedings (i) in their personal capacity on the basis that they are local solicitors allegedly being threatened with a breach of their constitutional right to earn a livelihood and (ii) from a public interest perspective. Counsel for the applicants posed the question that if it is the case that the Court finds that these solicitors lack locus standi, then who would be deemed to have sufficient locus standi to have carriage of these proceedings? It was further submitted that the applicants, as officers of the court, had a right to challenge a decision of this nature.

11 2 3.3 Counsel emphasised the fact that the first named respondent had involved the applicants in the consultation process concerning the decision to transfer the temporary New Ross District Court to the temporary Wexford District Court. It was argued that it was inconsistent for the first named respondents to contend that the applicants lacked locus standi to challenge the decision to transfer the temporary New Ross District Court in the light of their having included the applicants in the consultation process. Counsel relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Mulcreevy v. Minister for Environment [2004] 1 I.R. 72 and Lancefort Limited v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [1999] 2 I.R. 270.

Jurisdiction

12 The kernel of the applicants' submission in relation to the jurisdictional issue is the question as to the correct procedure to be invoked in order to make a valid transfer of the sittings at the temporary New Ross District Court to the temporary Wexford District Court at Ardcavan. It was submitted that the decision to transfer the venue was in breach of s. 26 (1) of the Courts of Justice Act1953 which governs the appointment of places for the conduct of the business of the District Court. Counsel for the applicant contended that the decision to move the sittings to the temporary Wexford District Court at Ardcavan was a decision which was within the jurisdiction of the first named respondent and not the second named respondent. Counsel further contended that there was a statutory procedure to be followed and this procedure, in this instance, did not allow for this decision to be within the remit of the second named...