Martin O'Shea v West Wood Club Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judge | Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 24 |
| Date | 16 January 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 24
THE HIGH COURT
AND
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) ACT 1838 S61
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) ACT 1838 S71
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROCEDURES AND AUDIT) REGS 2002 SI 508/2002 ART 38
COMPETITION ACT 2002
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 107
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 108
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 109
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) ACT 1838 S106
COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S33
QUEEN v SECREATARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT EX PARTE FACTORTAME 1991 1 AER 70 1990 2 LLOYDS 351 1990 ECR I-2433 1990 3 CMLR 1 1990 140 NLJ 927
FRANCOVICH & ORS v ITALIAN REPUBLIC 1991 ECR I-5357 1993 2 CMLR 66 1995 ICR 722 1992 IRLR 84
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 108(3)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL v WILLIAMS 2010 1 IR 801 2010/13/3207 2010 IESC 7
COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S52(1)
DPP v O'CONNOR 2000 1 IR 300 2000 2 ILRM 137 2000/8/2858
DPP (TRAVERS) v BRENNAN 1998 4 IR 67 1998 2 ILRM 129 1998/4/802
MITCHELSTOWN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY v CMSR FOR VALUATION 1989 IR 210
EMERSON v HEARTY & MORGAN 1946 NI 35
AG v MCLOUGHLIN 1931 IR 480
BETTING DUTY REGS 1926 SI 65/1926
DPP v BUCKLEY UNREP CHARLETON 8.5.2007 2007/16/3400 2007 IEHC 150
DUBLIN CORP v ASHLEY 1986 IR 781 1986/6/498
EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMISSION NOTICE ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE AID LAW BY NATIONAL COURTS 2009 PARA 74
STREEKGEWEST WESTELIJK NOORD-BRABANT v STAATSSECRETARIS VAN FINANCIEN 2007 STC 692 2005 ECR I-85 2005 STI 136 2005 AER (D) 52 (JAN) (CASE C-174/02)
AIR LIQUIDE INDUSTRIES BELGIUM SA v VILLE DE SERAING 2006 3 CMLR 667 2006 AER (D) 158 (JUN) 2006 ECR I-5293 (JOINED CASES C-393/04 & C-41/05)
PAPE v MINISTER VAN LANDBOUW, NATUURBEHEER EN VISSERIJ 2007 STC 715 2005 ECR I-127 2005 STI 136 2005 AER (D) 53 (JAN) (CASE C-175/02)
State aid – Rates liability – Damages – Applicant seeking relief from rates liability – Whether High Court has the jurisdiction to grant remedy
Facts: The defendant company, West Wood Club Ltd, which operates swimming pools and other leisure facilities in Dublin, claimed before the District Court that Dublin City Council was engaged in the supply of services similar to and in competition with its own in breach of the Competition Act, 2002 and of various Articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It claimed that State money received by the Council from, inter alia, commercial rates distorts or threatens to distort competition in that market. It further claimed that the Council enjoys tax advantages in relation to its operations in the leisure market, which also constitute State aid. It also said that, in breach of EU requirements, the State aid in question had not been notified to the European Commission. The defendant therefore argued, in the District Court hearing of the rates collection applications, that the Council was in receipt of unlawful State aid and that the District Court was obliged by EU law to vindicate its rights by granting relief from the rates liability and/or by awarding damages equivalent to the amount of rates sought to be collected. The complainants, Mr O”Shea and Mr Mulhair, are rates collectors who act on behalf of the Council. That body disputed the jurisdiction of the District Court, as a court of limited and local jurisdiction, to grant the relief sought by the defendant. The complainants pleaded that they were lawfully entitled to the sums claimed under the statute. It was asserted that, even if the Council was involved in the supply of services and promotion of premises as claimed (which was formally denied) that did not entitle the defendant to any relief or exemption. Before the High Court, the complainants did not disagree with the defendant”s outline of the State aid rules. However, it was submitted, firstly, that jurisdiction to entertain such a claim has not been conferred on the District Court and that even if it had, the claim by the defendant exceeded that court”s jurisdiction. Secondly, it was said that if there had indeed been an infringement of the rules then responsibility for that would lie, not with the Council, but with Ireland, relying upon Dublin City Council v Williams [2010] 1 IR 801. The defendant submitted that all of the authorities relied upon by the complainants relate to issues of purely domestic law.
Held by O”Malley Iseult J that the question posed in the case stated was not a general one as to the powers of the District Court in respect of breaches of EU law but a specific one relating to State aid and it was not for the parties, as opposed to the District Judge, to say whether his concern related to a general matter or the availability of a remedy in this case. As a matter of law, O”Malley Iseult J held that the true threshold issue in the case was whether or not the availability of State aid as a defence to the collection of a tax or levy arose on the facts. O”Malley Iseult J held that there were a number of factual issues to be determined, for example, whether commercial rates are hypothecated to the purposes complained of, and whether the Council is exempt from payment of such rates. O”Malley Iseult J held that it was not possible for the court to answer a question on a point of law without knowing whether it actually arises as an issue as to do so would be to engage in a moot. O”Malley Iseult J held it not to be possible in the case stated procedure to advise whether a court has jurisdiction to grant a particular remedy without knowing whether or not that court has reached a view of the facts tending to indicate that a breach has occurred which requires a remedy. In the particular circumstances of the case O”Malley Iseult J held it not to be possible for the court to reformulate the question, since there are no findings of fact which could form the basis for such an exercise.
O”Malley Iseult J held that she would remit the matter to the District Court without answering the question, leaving it open to the District Judge to reach a decision in the case, to continue with the hearing if he does not think it has concluded or to formulate a fresh case stated, as he sees fit.
Judgment approved.
JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley delivered the 16th day of January 2015.
1. This is a consultative case stated in which the central issue raised is the jurisdiction of the District Court to consider, in the context of proceedings for the collection of commercial rates, an argument based on the alleged illegality of the rates arising from alleged breaches of European Union rules on State aid. The defendant company, which operates swimming pools and other leisure facilities in Dublin, says that Dublin City Council ("the Council", or "DCC") is engaged in the supply of services similar to and in competition with its own. It claims that State money received by the Council from, inter alia, commercial rates distorts or threatens to distort competition in that market. It further claims that the Council enjoys tax advantages in relation to its operations in the leisure market, which also constitute State aid. It also says that, in breach of EU requirements, the State aid in question has not been notified to the European Commission.
2. The defendant therefore argued, in the District Court hearing of the rates collection applications, that the Council was in receipt of unlawful State aid and that the District Court was obliged by EU law to vindicate its rights by granting relief from the rates liability and/or by awarding damages equivalent to the amount of rates sought to be collected.
3. The two individuals named in the title of the proceedings are rates collectors who act on behalf of the Council. That body disputed the jurisdiction of the District Court, as a court of limited and local jurisdiction, to grant the relief sought by the defendant.
4. The case as stated is here set out in full:
"Consultative Case Stated "
Questions of law
1. Whether the District Court has jurisdiction to consider the defendant's EU State Aid complaint and/or challenge to the legality of the rates charged by Dublin City Council, pursuant to Sections 61 and 71 Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, in defence of these proceedings?
Proceedings
1. The proceedings (1) before the District Court are in respect of the nonpayment of rates to Dublin City Council ["DCC'] by the Defendant The Complainants in each of the two cases are lawfully appointed Rates Collectors of DCC. (2)
2. The particulars of each case are as follows:
(1) Martin O'Shea -and- West Wood Club Limited
Premises: 22 Clontarf Estuary, Dublin 3 - car park
5 Fairview Park, Dublin 3 -sports centre
Amount now due: € 273,213.35
(2) Noel Mulhair -and- West Wood Club Limited
Premises: la/2 St Johns Road, Dublin 4 -leisure centre
Amount now due: €50,971.27
2. Case Progression
1. In respect of both cases a Summons was issued returning the matter for hearing before the District Court on 26 October 2012.
2. The cases were adjourned on a number of occasions.
3. On 3 May 2013 the Defendant delivered Points of Defence to the Complainants.
4. On 29 May the Complainants delivered a Reply to the Points of Defence to the Defendant.
5. On 11 June 2013 the Defendant delivered Amended Points of Defence to the Complainants.
6. On 13 June 2013 both matters came on for hearing before Judge O'Neill, at District Court No.8, who agreed that both cases could be heard as one.
Evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cork County Council v Sylvia Lynch and Desmond J. Boyle
...factual premise (see for example Corley v. Gill [1975] IR 313, Martin v. Quinn [1980] IR 244, at p. 250 and O'Shea v. Westwood Club Ltd. [2015] IEHC 24). However, as I have explained earlier, Allen J. correctly viewed the essential issue – particularly as reflected in the reformulated issue......
-
The Child and Family Agency v L.B.
...of action was to refer the question back to the District Judge for his decision on the facts. 13 In O'Shea v. West Wood Club Limited [2015] IEHC 24 and in the context of an issue as to whether jurisdiction arose, O'Malley J. stated, at paras. 61 and 63:- ‘61. The fact that a question in a c......
-
Untoy v GE Capital Woodchester Finance Ltd & GE Capital Woodchester Ltd t/a GE Money
...as one of the parties was not present.) 91 31. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this court in O' Shea v. West Wood Club Ltd. [2015] IEHC 24, where the case stated was remitted on the basis that no findings of fact were set out, and the court could not see whether or not the issue ......
-
Case Number: ADJ-00020853. Workplace Relations Commission
...to take preparatory steps for life after the contract of employment has ended.”The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Reilly, [2015] IEHC 24Referring to the requirement for the employer’s response to an employee’s conduct to be reasonable, Mr McCormack noted the comments of Mr Ju......