Hayes v Chief Superintendent D.J. Sheahan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 01 May 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] IEHC 179
• Docket Number: [2012 No. 661 SS]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 May 2013

[2013] IEHC 179

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: No. 661 SS/2012

Hayes v Chief Superintendent D.J. Sheahan

No Redaction Needed

Between:

David Hayes

Applicant

And

Chief Superintendent D.J. Sheahan

Respondent

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S15A

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S43

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S15A(3)

SOUTHERN HOTEL SLIGO LTD v IARNROD EIREANN 2007 3 IR 792 2007/57/12133 2007 IEHC 254

DCR O.51 r1

DCR O.36 r1

COURTS ACT 1924 S77A

COURTS ACT 1991 S4

DCR 1948 r147

INSPECTOR OF TAXES v ARIDA LTD 1995 2 IR 230 1996 1 ILRM 74

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Costs

Case stated - District Court - Jurisdiction - Appeal from refusal to grant firearms certificate - Meaning of civil proceedings - Whether District Court Judge having jurisdiction to award costs of appeal under s. 15A Firearms Act 1925 - Whether inherent jurisdiction in District Court to award costs - Inspector of Taxes v Arida Ltd [1995] 2 IR 230 and Southern Hotel Sligo Ltd v Iarnród Éireann [2007] IEHC 254, [2007] 3 IR 792 considered - District Court Rules 1926 - District Court Rules 1948 (S.I. No. 431) - District Court Rules 1997 (SI No 93), O 36, r 1 and O 51, r 1 - Courts of Justice Act 1924 (No 10), s 77 - Firearms Act 1925 (No 17), s 15A - Questions answered (2012/661SS - Peart J - 1/5/2013) [2013] IEHC 179

Hayes v Sheahan

Facts: The applicant appealed successfully to the District Court against a refusal by the respondent to grant him a Firearms Certificate pursuant to the provisions of s. 15A Firearms Act 1925-2009. The applicant sought an order for his costs. The Court considered whether the appeal by the applicant fell within the definition of 'civil proceedings' within the meaning of Order 51 rule 1 District Court Rules 1997.

Held by Peart J. that the definition of civil proceedings was not so wide as to avail the applicant and did not give the District Judge the power to award costs. The case stated would be answered in the negative.

1 The applicant successfully appealed to the District Court against a refusal by the respondent to grant him a Firearms Certificate pursuant to the provisions of Section 15A of the Firearms Act 1925 - 2009, as inserted by Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006.

2 Upon that success the applicant herein sought an order for his costs of the appeal, and an issue arose before the District Court as to whether on an appeal of that kind the District Judge has jurisdiction to make an award of costs in his favour.

3 Section 15A (3) of the Firearms Act provides that on such an appeal the Court may (a) confirm the decision; (b) adjourn the proceedings, and direct the issuing person to reconsider the decision in the light of the appeal proceedings; or (c) allow the appeal. Noteworthy is the fact that the section and indeed the Act is silent as to the question of costs.

4 It is well-established that the District Court does not enjoy an inherent jurisdiction - see most recently Southern Hotel (Sligo) Ltd v. Iarnrod Eireann [2007] 3 IR.792. The District Court is a court of local and limited jurisdiction and its powers must emanate from statute, and to an extent from Rules of the District Court.

5 Order 51, rule 1 of the District Court Rules, 1997 ("DCR 1997") provides:

"Save as where otherwise provided by Statute, or by Rules of Court, the granting or withholding of costs of any party to civil proceedings in the court shall be in the discretion of the court" (emphasis added).

6 Order 51 relates to civil proceedings, whereas Order 36, rule 1 DCR 1997 makes provision for the ordering of costs and expenses in certain circumstances in any case of summary jurisdiction, namely criminal proceedings, and is therefore not relevant to the present application.

7 A central question in the present case is whether the appeal by the applicant against the refusal of a firearms certificate is within the definition of "civil proceedings" and therefore within the provisions of Order 51, r.1 DCR 1997.

8 I leave aside for the moment the respondent's argument that Order 51 DCR 1997 does not confer any power in relation to costs, but rather "governs how that power to award costs is to be exercised", to use the words of Hedigan J. in Southern Hotel (Sligo) Ltd v. Iarnrod Eireann [supra].

9 DCR 1997 defines "civil proceedings" by stating that "it includes those suits and actions at law in which jurisdiction is conferred by any enactment upon the...