Re Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judgment Date: 21 December 1987
• Docket Number: [1987 No. 49 SS]
• Date: 21 December 1987

(H.C.)

In re Murphy

Amusement halls -Local authority resolution to permit licensing -Rescission by subsequent resolution - One month's notice of resolution to be given to every councillor - Notice of passing of resolution to be published in newspaper - Copy of newspaper notice to be "evidence of the passing" of resolution - Whether newspaper notice evidence that resolution was validly passed - Whether onus on local authority to prove one month's notice given to every councillor - Gaming and Lotteries Act,1956 (No. 2), s. 13(1), (3), (4), (5).

The applicants applied to the Dublin Metropolitan District Court for a certificate pursuant to Part III of the Act of 1956, authorising the issue of a gaming licence in respect of premises within the administrative area of Dublin Corporation. At the hearing of the application the court was satisfied that Part III of the Act had been adopted by resolution of Dublin City Council in 1956, and that that resolution had been in force for many years. There was produced to the court a copy of a newspaper, dated five months prior to the application, which contained a public notice of the rescinding of the original resolution. It was argued on behalf of the Corporation that, as the application for the renewal of the certificate was dated subsequent to the passing of the rescinding resolution, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. On behalf of the applicants it was argued that while the production of a copy of the newspaper containing the notice of rescission was sufficient to prove that the Corporation had purported to pass that resolution, it was not sufficient evidence that one month's notice had been given to each member of the Council. On being placed on strict proof by the court that notice had been given to each council member in compliance with the provisions of s. 13, sub-s. 3 of the Act, the Corporation adduced evidence which showed that the sending of notices to members of the City Council was the responsibility of the secretary of the City Manager; that the secretary was assisted by several employees of the Corporation and also made use of a computer which...