Neville Hotels Unlimited Company v Public Dance Halls Act 1935

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Dignam
• Judgment Date: 20 June 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 422
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 2021 No. 830 SS

In the Matter of Section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961

In the Matter of the Public Dance Halls Act 1935 as Amended

In the Matter of an Application by Neville Hotels Unlimited Company for a Public Dancing Licence Pursuant to the Public Dance Halls Act 1935 as Amended.

[2022] IEHC 422

2021 No. 830 SS

THE HIGH COURT.

Consultative case stated – Public dancing licence – Public Dance Halls Act 1935 – District Judge asking questions of the High Court – Whether the Public Dance Halls Act 1935 requires that an applicant for a public dancing licence must hold public liability insurance

Facts: A matter came before the High Court by way of a consultative case stated from Judge Kennedy in the District Court in accordance with s. 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. The opinion of the High Court was sought concerning two questions of law arising in an application by Neville Hotels Unlimited Company for a public dancing licence in respect of the Druids Glen Hotel and Golf Resort, Newmountkennedy, County Wicklow pursuant to the Public Dance Halls Act 1935, as amended. Judge Kennedy asked two questions of the High Court: “(a) As a matter of law, must an applicant for a public dancing licence pursuant to the Public Dance Halls Act 1935 as amended have public liability insurance against the public liability risk arising from or associated with dancing taking place on the premises the subject of the application before a public dancing licence may be granted pursuant to the Public Dance Halls Act 1935 as amended? (b) Am I entitled as a matter of law to grant a public dancing licence pursuant to section 2 of the Public Dance Hall Act 1935 as amended without making the grant of such a licence subject to the condition that the Applicant put in place and maintain a policy of public liability insurance in respect of the premises the subject of the application?”

Held by Dignam J that the 1935 Act does not require that an applicant for a public dancing licence must hold public liability insurance (because it may be able to satisfy the District Court that it would otherwise be able to compensate individuals who might suffer injury) and that the District Court has the power in an appropriate case either to impose or not to impose a condition that an applicant must hold such a policy (having heard evidence as to the financial circumstances of the applicant).

Dignam J answered the District Judge’s questions as follows: (a) No; and (b) Yes.

Case stated.

Judgment ofMr Justice Dignamdelivered on the 20th day of June 2022.

Introduction and Background

1 This matter comes before the High Court by way of a consultative case stated from Judge Kennedy in the District Court in accordance with section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. The opinion of the High Court is sought concerning two questions of law arising in an application by Neville Hotels Unlimited Company for a public dancing licence in respect of the Druids Glen Hotel and Golf Resort, Newmountkennedy, County Wicklow pursuant to the Public Dance Halls Act 1935, as amended (“the 1935 Act”).

2 The District Judge's findings of fact and his inferences and conclusions from those findings are set out in full below but it may be helpful at this stage to set out in summary form the factual background to the application.

3 The Applicant company (“the Applicant”) is a company within the Neville Group of companies (“the Group”). The Group is involved in the business, construction and hotel sectors. The Applicant carries on the Group's business in the hotel sector. It operates four hotels, including Druids Glen Hotel and Golf Resort, Wicklow. The hotel business includes the hosting of weddings and provision of function spaces in the hotels. That end of the business (which naturally involves public dancing) accounts for 14.47% of the Group's income stream from the four hotels. Up to the 30th of April 2020 the Group maintained public liability insurance for their non-building and non-construction public liability risks, including those arising from the hotel business. The Group decided to self-insure from the 1st of May 2020 onwards in respect of all non-building and non-construction related public liability risks of the Group including the hotel-related activities. The reason given for this decision is that for the period between January 2017 and April 2020 the excess on its policy was such that it had paid out all claims from its own resources and it was in effect therefore self-insuring in any event. It was paying for insurance but also satisfying claims out of its own resources. The Applicant's position (as reflected in the evidence set out in the Case Stated) is that the Applicant has sufficient liquidity, assets and reserves to fully and effectively self-insure against any and all public liability risks and claims likely to arise from any dancing taking place at the hotels held by the Applicant pursuant to a public dancing licence granted by the District Court.

4 Against that background the Applicant applied to the District Court for a public dancing licence and that application came before Judge Kennedy on the 11th of December 2020. Evidence was given by the Applicant's managing director and its accountant and auditor as to the above matters, including the claims history, the premia and excesses on the insurance policy, and the Group's financial situation.

5 It was submitted by the Applicant that: (i) the provisions of the 1935 Act did not require proof that an applicant had or intended to put in place a policy of public liability insurance; (ii) such a policy was not a condition precedent to the granting of a public dancing licence under the Act; (iii) while it may be usual practice to make the grant of a public dancing licence conditional upon such an insurance policy being in place, such a condition was neither necessary or appropriate on this application because the Applicant had sufficient liquid assets to meet the costs of any public liability claims; and (iv) it is open to the District Court to impose such conditions as it considers appropriate with a view to ensuring that assets are available to meet the cost of any public liability claims arising out of dancing on the premises.

6 An Garda Síochána submitted to the District Court that it is the normal practice that an applicant for a public dancing licence has adequate public liability insurance with an authorised third-party insurance provider and that the licensee shall furnish details of and proof of payment for the renewal premium to the court clerk at least seven days before each annual licensing District Court.

Public Dance Halls Act, 1935 (as amended)

7 Section 2 of the 1935 Act (as amended by section 6 of the Licensing (Combating Drug Abuse) Act 1997 provides:

“2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may apply to the Justice of the District Court exercising jurisdiction in any licensing area for a licence (in this Act referred to as a public dancing licence) to use a particular place, whether licensed or not licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, situate in such licensing area for public dancing, and such Justice may, if he so thinks proper, grant such licence to such person.

(2) In considering an application under this section for a public dancing licence, a Justice of the District Court shall, in addition to any other matter which may appear to him to be relevant, have regard to the following matters, that is to say: —

(a) the character and the financial and other circumstances of the applicant for such licence;

(b) the suitability of the place to which such application relates;

(c) the facilities for public dancing existing in the neighbourhood of such place at the time of such application;

(d) the accommodation for the parking of vehicles in the neighbourhood of such place;

(e) the probable age of the persons who would be likely to make use of such place for public dancing;

(f) whether the situation of such place is or is not such as to render difficult the supervision by the Garda Síochána of the management of and proceedings in such place;

(g) the hours during which the applicant proposes that public dancing should be permitted in such place.

(3) On the hearing of an application under this section for a public dancing licence, any member of the Garda Síochána and any person who appears to the Justice hearing such application to be interested therein may appear and be heard in opposition to such application and may adduce evidence in support of such opposition.

(4) Every application under this Act for a public dancing licence (except an application for a public dancing licence in respect of a place for which no such licence is in existence at the time of such application and an application for a public dancing licence for a defined period not exceeding one month and an application which is authorised by this Act to be made at any time) shall be made at an annual licensing district court and at no other time.”

8 Section 4 of the 1935 Act (as amended by section 7 of the 1997 Act) provides:

“A Justice of the District Court granting a public dancing licence may—

(a) Insert therein such conditions and restrictions as he shall think proper, and

(b) In particular (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power)—

(i) May insert in such licence conditions limiting the days on which and the hours during which the place to which such licences related may be used for public dancing, and

(ii) Shall, where the judge considers it appropriate to do so, insert a condition that the person to whom the licence is being granted shall make all reasonable arrangements toensure that persons entering or making use of the place are not in possession of any controlled drug and that the place is not used for the sale, supply or distribution of any...