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 |
AND
1989 WJSC-HC 2030
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
Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrdelivered the 15th day of March, 1989
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.
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.
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.
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.
The respondent has filed a statement opposing the application for judicial review on two grounds, namely :-
(1) that the applicant is not entitled to seek judicial review in respect of the matters complained of and
(2) that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application being made herein
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Geoghegan v Institute of Chartered Accountants
...... proposed dismissal of the appeal by the Plaintiff against the findings and order made by Murphy J. in theseproceedings. . . 3 In the course of his judgment in the High Court, Murphy ...It is not the same situation as if the Institute were a sports or social club. Both in the objects of the Institute and in the procedure by which it was established and by which ... judgment concluded:- "Whilst the activities of the Jockey Club in England (and the Turf Club in Ireland) relate to sport and to that extent are distinguishable from the affairs of the ......
-
Becker v Duggan
...to give reasons -Whether injury to reputation of applicant -Beirne v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [1993] ILRM 1; Murphy v Turf Club [1989] IR 171; Rajah v Royal College of Surgeons [1994] 1 IR 384; Geoghegan v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland [1995] 3 IR 86; Eoghan v Univ......
-
Houston v Barniville ; Houston v Geoghegan ; Houston v The General Council of The Bar of Ireland; Houston v The General Council of The Bar of Ireland; Houston v O'Neill
...does not impact upon their lawfulness or the degree to which they are binding upon Ms. Houston. 104 The cases of Murphy v. Turf Club [1989] I.R. 171 and Rajah v. Royal College of Surgeons [1994] 1 I.L.R.M. 233 are clear authority for the proposition that a private agreement between indivi......
-
Waldron v Honorable Society of Kings Inns
...SERVICE 1985 1 AC 374 RSC O.84 r21(1) RUSSELL V DUKE OF NORFOLK 1949 1 AER 109 KIELY V MIN SOCIAL WELFARE 1977 IR 267 MURPHY V TURF CLUB 1989 IR 171 BEIRNE V COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SIOCHANA 1993 ILRM Synopsis: JUDICIAL REVIEW Fair procedures Education - Admission to course - Requirement......