Jaggers Restaurant Ltd v Ahearne

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C.J.
• Judgment Date: 18 February 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1988 WJSC-SC 328
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 58 of 1987]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 18 February 1988

JAGGERS RESTAURANT LTD v. AHEARNE & ORS

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1936,

SECTION 38

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSING ACTS 1833 TO 1983,

SECTIONS 14 AND 15 OF THE INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1960

JAGGERS RESTAURANT LIMITED

Applicant/

Respondent

and

AHEARNE & ORS.

Objectors/

Appellants

1988 WJSC-SC 328

58/87

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

JUDGE

Judgment

Reasons - Statement - Necessity - Licence - Entitlement subject to statutory proofs - Ground of refusal to be stated - ~See~ Licensing Acts, licence - (58/60 - Supreme Court - 18/1/88)

|Jaggers Restaurant Ltd. v. Ahearne|

LICENSING ACTS

Licence

New premises - Substitution - Original premises - Demolition - Application for certificate opposed by objector - ~Locus standi~ of objector - Whether an inhabitant of the parish - The applicant company applied to the Circuit Court pursuant to s.15 of the Act of 1960 and obtained an order declaring that new premises at No. 17 Fleet Street in the City of Dublin would be fit and convenient to be licensed pursuant to s.14 of the Act if altered in accordance with certain plans annexed to the application - That order involved a determination that the applicants would be entitled under s.14 of the Act to a certificate declaring them to be entitled to receive a licence in respect of the new premises in substitution for a licence formerly attached to premises at No. 13 Sean McDermott Street which had been demolished - Section 14 of the Act of 1960 requires, inter alia, that an applicant for such a certificate must prove that the new premises, if not located on the site of the original premises, are located either partly on that site or in the immediate vicinity - Section 14 states that the court shall grant a certificate pursuant to the section, provided that the requirements of the section have been satisfied, unless the court prohibits the issue of such licence in consequence of an objection made under s.4 of the Act of 1833 on the ground of the character, misconduct or unfitness of the applicant or the unfitness of the new premises (being most of the s.4 grounds) - The applicants" new premises were not located wholly or partly on the site of the original premises - The respondent objectors appealed to the High Court against the order of the Circuit Court and submitted that the applicants" intended new premises were not in the immediate vicinity of the original premises in Sean McDermott Street - The applicants denied the right of the objectors to oppose the application since the right to object was conferred by s.4 of the Act of 1833 on an inhabitant of the parish and none of the objectors lived in the civil parish of St. Andrew in which the proposed new premises were situate - The judge (MacKenzie J.) was not satisfied that the applicants" new proposed premises were in the immediate vicinity of the original premises in Sean McDermott Street but he was not sure that the respondent objectors had ~locus standi~ to be heard on the appeal - The judge stated a Case for the opinion of the Supreme Court - Held that a respondent who carried on a licensed business in the neighbourhood of the new premises had ~locus standi~ to put the applicants on proof of compliance with the special requirements of s.14 of the Act of 1960 - Held that a respondent would have to be an inhabitant of the said parish if he wished to object to the grant of a certificate on the ground of the character, misconduct or unfitness of the applicants or on the ground of the unfitness of the new premises - Held that a judge who refuses to grant a certificate under s.14 of the Act of 1960 should state the reason for the refusal - Held that s.14 of the Act of 1960 has modified, in the manner therein appearing, the application of s.4 of the Act of 1833 - Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1833, ss.4, 5 - Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960, ss.14, 15 - (58/87 - Supreme Court - 18/2/88) - [1988] I.R. 308 [1988] ILRM 553

|Jaggers Restaurant Ltd. v. Ahearne|

Citations:

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1936 S38

INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1960 S15

INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1960 S14

INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1960 S14(1)

LICENSING (IRL) ACT 1833 S4

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 18th day of February 1988by FINLAY C.J.[NEM DISS]

2 This is a Case Stated to the Supreme Court by MacKenzie J. pursuant to Section 38 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936in an appeal pending before him from the Order of the Dublin Circuit Court granting to the Applicant a Declaratory Order pursuant to Section 15 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1960in respect of premises at Fleet Street in the City of Dublin.

3 The Order appealed against was to the effect that it would be proper, pursuant to Section 14 of the Act of 1960, to grant a certificate enabling the Applicant to obtain an intoxicating liquor licence if the premises were altered in accordance with the plans submitted and no objection as to the character of the Applicant was made out.

4 It was, therefore, in short a case of licensing premises purporting to have been substituted for a demolished licensed premises.

5 The licensed premises which had been demolished were situate in Sean McDermott Street. The premises proposed to be licensed were, as already indicated, situated in Fleet Street.

6 Quite clearly, therefore, the substituted premises were located neither on the site of nor partly on the site of the original premises.

7 In these circumstances, if the Applicant were to succeed in his application it was necessary for him to prove

8 (a) that the substituted premises were in the immediate vicinity of the original premises, and

9 (b) that the location of the substituted premises where they are, rather than on the site of the original premises, was unlikely of itself to have a materially adverse affect on the business carried on in any licensed premises in the neighbourhood.

10 At the hearing of the application before the Circuit Court twelve persons, each of whom was the owner of a licensed premises in the neighbourhood, appeared to oppose the granting of the Declaration. Five of them owned premises in Fleet Street itself and the others owned premises nearby. No issue there arose as to their right to appear in opposition to the granting of the Declaration and to be heard.

11 Upon the granting of the Order by the Circuit Court these twelve persons appealed to the High Court.

12 The learned High Court Judge himself raised the question as to whether these persons were entitledto object to or oppose the application and consequently the question as to whether there was any appeal validly before him.

13 Having heard the evidence in the case, he expressed the view that it had not been established that Fleet Street was, within the meaning of Section 14 of the 1960 Act in the immediate vicinity of Sean McDermott Street. This would appear to be a conclusion very strongly supported by the evidence.

14 He decided, however, before finally...