Hyland v Dundalk Racing (1999) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | the Court,Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan,Ms. Justice Irvine |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IECA 172 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Neutral Citation Number: [2017] IECA 172 [2015 No. 579] [2015 No. 578] [2015 No. 580] |
[2017] IECA 172
The Court
Finlay Geoghegan J.
Peart J.
Irvine J.
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] IECA 172
[2015 No. 579]
[2015 No. 578]
[2015 No. 580]
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Bookmaking – Racecourse – Damages – Appellant seeking to appeal against three orders of the High Court – Whether Pitch Rules were enforceable by the individual bookmakers against the appellant
Facts: Three appeals to the Court of Appeal concerned a dispute between members of the Irish National Bookmakers’ Association (INBA) and the appellant, Dundalk Racing (1999) Ltd, which was the owner and operator of the racecourse at Dundalk. The appeals by Dundalk and cross appeals by each of the respondents, Mr Hyland, Mr Hughes and Mr O’Hare, were from three orders of the High Court dated 13th July 2015, one in each proceeding. The orders were made pursuant to three judgments of the High Court (Hogan J): 1) A judgment delivered on 19th February 2014 in Mr Hyland’s proceedings which, pursuant to an order of the High Court of 20th October, 2008 (Murphy J), was heard with Mr Hughes’ proceedings and in respect of which the plaintiffs in approximately 30 other proceedings recorded in the schedule to the order of 20th October, 2008, all against Dundalk, agreed to be bound (the liability judgment); 2) A judgment delivered on 9th January 2015 in Mr Hyland’s proceedings ( the Hyland assessment judgment); 3) A judgment delivered on 30th January 2015 in Mr O’Hare and Mr Hughes’ proceedings (O’Hare/Hughes assessment judgment).
Held by Finlay Geoghegan J and Irvine J that the trial judge was correct in deciding: 1) The Pitch Rules are enforceable by the individual bookmakers against Dundalk as a racecourse owner and the bookmakers may sue to enforce them in the same manner as any other contract in which they are expressly named as a party; 2) The decision of the Pitch Tribunal on 30th July 2007 was merely to the effect that the Pitch Rules (as they then stood) would not apply to a new racecourse; 3) Dundalk racecourse in 2007 remained in substance the same racecourse it was in 2001, at least in the sense contemplated by the Pitch Rules; 4) Dundalk, when allocating pitches in 2007, was bound by the Pitch Rules and had no entitlement to require the bookmakers pay €8,000 as a capital contribution; 5) The Pitch Rules do not violate s. 4(1) of the Competition Act 2002. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal of Dundalk against the above findings and the relevant declarations in the orders made in each proceeding on 13th July 2015. The Court concluded that Rule 19 in the 2007 Pitch Rules meant that in the absence of a meeting and agreement between the AIR and the INBA as to how the Rules were to apply to all-weather racing, the Pitch Rules then currently in force remained applicable to all weather racing in Dundalk. The Court concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate the finding of the trial judge that Mr Hughes participated in the unlawful collective trade boycott of bookmakers who stood at Dundalk in 2007 and 2008; that finding was set aside. The Court also dismissed the appeal of Dundalk in respect of the failure of the High Court Judge to award damages against Mr Hughes. Further, the Court held that the declaration in relation to the unlawful trade boycott made on the counterclaim in each proceeding in the orders of 13th July 2015 would be vacated as there was no subsisting finding that any of the three plaintiffs participated in such boycott. The Court decided that the matters which the trial judge relied upon to support his conclusion that the bookmakers acted reasonably in refusing to agree to stand at Dundalk on the terms available in August 2007, were either not supported by the evidence or were matters to which he ought not to have had regard. In those circumstances, the Court considered the issue of mitigation de novo, while remaining mindful of the facts found by the trial judge.
Finlay Geoghegan J and Irvine J held that the bookmakers failed in their lawful obligations to mitigate their loss when they rejected the offer made by Dundalk on 8th August 2007 of terms on which they might stand at the redeveloped Dundalk racecourse. The Court held that the appeals of Dundalk against the awards of damages were allowed and that each of the awards of damages made in favour of the respondents must be set aside. The Court dismissed the appeal by Mr O’Hare concerning the failure of the trial judge to grant an injunction directing Dundalk to allocate to him the pitch to which he would have been entitled in 2007 in accordance with the seniority provided for in the Pitch Rules.
Dismiss declarations and allow award damage.
These three appeals concern a bitter dispute between members of the Irish National Bookmakers' Association (‘INBA’) and Dundalk Racing (1999) Limited (‘Dundalk’) which is the owner and operator of the racecourse at Dundalk. The appeals by Dundalk and cross appeals by each of the plaintiffs (to whom we will refer as ‘the bookmakers’ or Mr. Hyland, Mr. Hughes and Mr. O' Hare respectively) are from three orders of the High Court dated 13th July 2015, one in each proceeding. The orders were made pursuant to three judgments of the High Court (Hogan J.):
1. A judgment delivered on 19th February 2014 in Mr. Hyland's proceedings (2008 No. 907 P.) [2014] IEHC 60 which, pursuant to an order of the High Court of 20th October, 2008 (Murphy J.), was heard with Mr. Hughes' proceedings (2008 No. 3304 P.) and in respect of which the plaintiffs in approximately 30 other proceedings recorded in the schedule to the order of 20th October, 2008, all against Dundalk, agreed to be bound. Those plaintiffs included Mr. O' Hare. We will refer to that judgment as the ‘liability judgment’.
2. A judgment delivered on 9th January 2015 in Mr. Hyland's proceedings [2015] IEHC 57 to which we will refer as the ‘Hyland assessment judgment’.
3. A judgment delivered on 30th January 2015 in Mr. O' Hare and Mr. Hughes' proceedings [2015] IEHC 198 to which we will refer as the ‘O' Hare/Hughes assessment judgment’.
The background to the dispute is fully set out in the liability judgment of the trial judge. As ever, he elegantly encapsulated the moment at which the dispute crystallised in the opening paragraph of his judgment:
‘Sunday, 26th August 2007 was an auspicious day in the annals of Irish horseracing, as on that day the first all weather racetrack in Ireland was opened at Dundalk racecourse. This major project had cost €35m. and entailed the construction of a major new stadium along with a new purpose built all weather track. The doyen of Irish racing journalists, the late lamented Colm Murray, was on hand to report on this major event for RTÉ. Yet what ought to have been an occasion for unalloyed joy and celebration was clouded by a bitter dispute between the racecourse (which is owned and operated by Dundalk Racing (1999) Ltd. (‘Dundalk’)) and the bookmakers who had heretofore frequented the course concerning the operation of what are known as the Pitch Rules.’
The primary facts for the most part are not in dispute. We only propose summarising same and reference should be made to the judgment of the trial judge for a more detailed account and explanation of the origins and evolution of the Pitch Rules which are central to the dispute.
Horseracing has taken place at Racecourse Road in Dundalk from the late nineteenth century. Until 1999, at least, the racecourse was owned and operated by Dundalk Race Company plc (‘Dundalk Race Company’). At that point racing was not doing well in Dundalk and Dundalk Race Company and Dun Dealgan Greyhound Racing Limited (‘Dun Dealgan’) decided to form a new company, Dundalk Racing (1999) Limited. It was incorporated on 18th February 1999 and intended as a vehicle whereby the racecourse would be redeveloped and a new greyhound stadium built at the same venue.
Certain dates prior to 2001 are relevant to the issues on appeal. The submissions refer to evidence given by Mr. Martin, the Chief Executive Officer of Dundalk, and Mr. McAuley, who was Chairman of both Dundalk Race Company and Dundalk, to the effect that there was, in 1999, an agreement to transfer the ownership of the racecourse from Dundalk Race Company to Dundalk in return, it would appear, for shares in the latter. Dun Dealgan was also allotted shares in Dundalk Racing. A planning application for the development of the racecourse site was lodged by Dundalk and planning permission granted on 16th October 2000. Following the lodging of appeals, there were further negotiations and an agreement was reached with An Taisce in early 2001, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the appeals which had been lodged by third parties to An Bord Pleanála.
Horseracing ceased at the racecourse in September 2001 for the purposes of redevelopment. There was a dispute in the High Court as to whether Dundalk operated racing at the racecourse prior to its closure in September 2001. The trial judge, at para. 64, records the transfer of the lands to Dundalk on 10th August 2001, and also held that it was ‘clear that prior to the closure of the track in September 2001 that registration fees were paid by bookmakers to Dundalk Racing’. The submissions on behalf of the bookmakers refer to evidence given to support this latter finding. Elsewhere, there is reference to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allied Irish Banks Plc v Connors
...policy had been terminated by the insurer. 27 The defendants rely upon a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Hyland v. Dundalk Racing (1999) Ltd [2017] IECA 172 and related cases. The background to those proceedings was that the plaintiffs, who were bookmakers, had been r......
-
Donegan v Kenny
...this conclusion, the trial judge in his judgment cited and applied the approach noted by the Court of Appeal in Hyland v Dundalk Racing [2017] IECA 172. at paragraph 78 (joint judgment of Finlay Geoghegan J. and Irvine J.) when seeking to find another purchaser that – “the standard by which......
-
Graham v Horse Racing Ireland
...they are expressly named as a party.” 144 This finding was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal in Hyland v Dundalk Racing (1999) Ltd [2017] IECA 172. 145 It is submitted, in light of the judgements in Francis Hyland, the Applicant's use of judicial review proceedings against HRI are mis......
-
Hyper Trust Ltd Trading as the Leopardstown Inn v FBD Insurance Plc
...have been taken.” Those observations were cited with approval by Finlay Geoghegan J. in the Court of Appeal in Hyland v. Dundalk Racing [2017] IECA 172. In that case, she said that the standard by which the innocent party is to be judged is “not an unduly harsh 197 . In addition, the plaint......