Murphy v The Turf Club

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 15 March 1989
• Neutral Citation: 1989 WJSC-HC 2030
• Docket Number: 314 JR./1988,[1988 No. 314J.R.]
• Date: 15 March 1989

MURPHY v. TURF CLUB

(JUDICIAL REVIEW)

WILLIAM MURPHY

APPLICANT

AND

THE TURF CLUB

RESPONDENT

1989 WJSC-HC 2030

314 JR./1988

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Remedy

Scope - Tribunal - Authority - Contract - Domestic tribunal deriving authority otherwise than from statute or common-law power - Turf club - Held that certiorari did not lie since the respondents were not a court or tribunal or body of persons (other than the Superior Courts) having, under statute or common law, authority to impose liabilities upon, or to determine questions affecting, the rights of individuals and having the duty to act in a judicial manner: ~The State (Colquhoun) v. D'Arcy~ [1936] I.R. 641 applied;~ R. v. Electricity Commissioners~ [1924] 1 K.B. 171 and ~The State (Hayes) v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal~ [1982] ILRM 210 considered - (1988/314 JR - Barr J. - 15/3/89) [1989] IR 171

|Murphy v. The Turf Club|

TRIBUNAL

Decision

Review - Procedure - Domestic tribunal - Authority - Powers derived from terms of contract - Powers without statutory or common-law base - Revocation of licence of racehorse trainer - Judicial review not appropriate remedy - ~See~ Judicial Review, remedy - (1988/314 JR - 15/3/89) [1989] IR 171

|Murphy v. The Turf Club|

Citations:

R V ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS 1924 1 KB 171

R V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD, EX PARTE LAIN 1967 2 QB 864

HAYES, STATE V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1982 ILRM 210

R V PANEL OF TAKE-OVERS & MERGERS 1987 1 AER 564

R V NATIONAL JOINT COUNCIL FOR THE CRAFT OF DENTAL TECHNICIANS EX PARTE NEATE 1953 1 QB 704

COLQUHOUN, STATE V D'ARCY 1936 IR 641

LAW V NATIONAL GREYHOUND RACING CLUB LTD 1983 3 AER 300, 1983 1 WLR 1302

SUPREME COURT ACT 1981 S31

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT O.53

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrdelivered the 15th day of March, 1989

2 The applicant is a racehorse trainer and he holds a licence in that regard which was issued to him by the respondent under the Rules of Racing and the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase (I.N.H.S.) Rules. The respondent and the I.N.H.S. Committee are the governing bodies for, respectively, flat and steeplechase racing in Ireland. Both have combined for the purpose of devising and publishing composite rules governing horse-racing in this state and related matters, including the licensing and conduct of trainers.

3 The applicant has been in business as a trainer licensed by the respondent since 1982 and that work constitutes his sole livelihood. His training establishment is situate at Rathangan, County Kildare. On 18th October, 1988 representatives of the respondent called to the applicant's stables. They carried out an inspection of the premises and of the horses which were there at the time.They furnished a report to the respondent which contained certain complaints about the state and condition of the applicant's stables in consequence of which the respondent purported to revoke his licence. The alleged revocation was communicated to the applicant on 20th October, 1988 and on that date he was told by a senior representative of the respondent that he (the applicant) could apply for restoration of his licence as soon as his stables had been put in order to the satisfaction of the respondent.

4 The applicant has averred in the affidavit which grounds his application for judicial review of the respondent's decision that, by reason of the revocation of his licence, he has suffered loss and damage which will be irreparable if the decision is not quashed. He submits that the purported revocation of his licence was null and void and of no legal effect in that the respondent acted ultra vires its powers and was in breach of constitutional and natural justice. He has brought these proceedings by way of judicial review seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent to revoke his training licence. His application also includes a claim for damages.

5 The matter came before me by way of ex-parte application on behalf of the applicant on 28th October, 1988. I gave him leave to apply for the required order of certiorari by way of judicial review and to apply for an assessment of damages arising out of the purported revocation of his training licence by the respondent. I stayed the decision of the respondent revoking the applicant's training licence until 7th November, 1988 or until further order in the meantime. The stay iscontinuing.

6 The respondent has filed a statement opposing the application for judicial review on two grounds, namely :-

7 (1) that the applicant is not entitled to seek judicial review in respect of the matters complained of and

8 (2) that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application being made herein

9 In R. .v. Electricity Commissioners 1924 1 KB 171 Atkin L.J. held that certiorari and prohibition may issue whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, act in excess of their legal authority. That statement is regarded as the foundation of the modern law on this topic. However, although it has been cited with approval many times since 1924, there is a clear tendency both in Ireland and England in recent years to extend the scope of judicial review and to bring within its compass tribunals which are not strictly within the ambit of the dictum of Lord Atkin - see, for example, R..v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex.p. Lain 1967 2 QB 864;the State (Hayes) .v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal 1982 I.L.R.M. 210 and R. .v. Panel of Take-overs and Mergers1987 1 AER 564.

10 The root issue in the present case is whether the respondent is a "legal authority" as postulated by Lord Atkin and whether its decision to revoke the applicant's licence is one which may be quashed by this court as having been made by the respondent in excess of its legal authority. It is well settled that for this purpose "legal authority" generally means statutory authority. Certiorari or prohibition willnot issue to a...