Re, Ward, Applicant

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date20 December 1966
Date20 December 1966
CourtSupreme Court
In re Ward, Applicant
In the Matter of the Intoxicating Liquor Act,1960. LEO WARD, Applicant (1)

Supreme Court.

Licence - Intoxicating liquor licence - Demolished premises - External walls left standing - Whether premises demolished - Application for licence for new premises in lieu of demolished premises - Location of new premises - Whether new premises in immediate vicinity of original premises - Meaning of "immediate vicinity" - Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960 (No.18 of 1960), s. 14.

Sect. 14 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960, provides inter alia that where licensed premises are demolished a new licence may be granted by the Court for suitable premises in the immediate vicinity.

The applicant, W. was the nominee of P. Ltd., a company which acquired licensed premises at Coal Quay, Cork. which were distant by the shortest route approximately 312 yards from unlicensed premises in St. Patrick's Street, Cork, owned by the company. The, company acquired the premises at Coal Quay for the purpose of demolishing them and transferring the licence to the St. Patrick's Street premises. The Coal Quay premises were demolished to the extent that the entire interior was virtually gutted, the external walls and part of the top floor only remaining. The premises, after this work had been done, were fit for no useful purpose. W. applied as nominee of P. Ltd. for a licence in respect of the St. Patrick's Street premises on the grounds that the Coal Quay premises were demolished and that the St. Patrick's Street premises were in the immediate vicinity of the Coal Quay premises. The case came on for hearing before the Circuit Court in Cork and the Circuit Court Judge stated a case for the determination of the Supreme Court and left the following questions for decision, namely, 1, whether on the facts found by him he was entitled to find that the premises, no 1 Coal Quay, had been demolished within the meaning of s. 14, sub-s. 1 (a), of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960? and 2, whether on the facts found by him he was entitled to find that the premises, no. 1 Coal Quay, were situated in the immediate vicinity of the premises no. 80 St. Patrick's Street, within the meaning of s. 14, sub-s. 1 (c) (ii), of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960.

Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Haugh and Walsh JJ.) that ó dálaighthe premises no. 1 Coal Quay had not been demolished within the meaning of the relevant section, and accordingly the first question in the Case Stated was answered in the negative.

2, The premises no. 1 Coal Quay Cork were situated in the immediate vicinity of the premises no. 80, St. Patrick's Street within the meaning of the relevant section: accordingly the second question in the Case Stated was answered in the affirmative.

Case Stated by His Honour Judge Thomas J. Neylon, Circuit Judge assigned to the Cork Circuit, sitting at Cork, pursuant to the provisions of s. 16 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1947, at the request of Superintendent Patrick G. Power, of the Garda Síochána, MacCurtain Street, in the City of Cork, with the consent of the applicant.

The Case Stated was as follows:—

"The applicant applied to me pursuant to the provisions of s. 14 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960, for such certificate as is mentioned in s. 5 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1833, in respect of the premises known as the Pavilion

Cinema and Cafe, situated at 80 St. Patrick's Street, in the Parish of St. Paul and City of Cork, to which no licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor is attached save a restaurant wine licence to enable him to obtain a licence for the sale of beer, wines and spirits by retail for consumption on the said premises, the said premises to be substituted for the premises known as no. 1 Coal Quay in the City of Cork which were duly licensed for the sale of beer, wines and spirits, the ground of the applicant's application being that the said premises known as no. 1 Coal Quay had been demolished and that the said premises no. 80 St. Patrick's Street, though not located on or partly on the site of the demolished premises, were situated in the immediate vicinity thereof and that the said premises no. 80 St. Patrick's Street are more suitable than the premises no. 1 Coal Quay for the business of selling intoxicating liquor.

I found the following facts to be proved or admitted:—

1. That the applicant is a director of the Pavilion Cinema and Cafe Limited, and is the manager of the business carried on by them at their premises at 80 St. Patrick's Street in the City of Cork;

2. That the Pavilion Cinema and Cafe Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1908-24, whose registered office is at 80 St. Patrick's Street and that the applicant is duly authorised to make this application as nominee of the said Company;

3. That the statutory requirements preliminary to the hearing of the application have all been complied with;

4. That the Pavilion Cinema and Café Limited carry on at 80 St. Patrick's Street the business of Cinema Proprietors and Restaurateurs;

5. That the applicant is the holder of a wine licence as nominee of the Pavilion Cinema and Cafe Limited which is used in relation to the said business of restaurateurs. That the said business caters in the main for clerks, office workers, commercial travellers, country people and family-type parties, and that the price of meals served in the restaurant is neither very high nor very low, being from 5s. 0d. to 9s. 0d. for lunch, with an average price of about 7s. 0d. for high teas instead of dinner served in the evening. That the restaurant has some regular customers, and that there is at least some demand by present customers for the supply and sale of alcoholic beverages which cannot be sold and supplied under the said wine licence;

6. That the directors of the Pavilion Cinema and Café Limited have the intention not so much of attracting customers of nearby licensed establishments, as of retaining their present trade and providing an amenity for family parties coming in from the country looking for a meal at reasonable prices at which alcoholic beverages such as beer or spirits could be provided and of providing an amenity for tourists looking for such meals;

7. That the restaurant as it now exists is a fit and proper premises to be licensed, and that it is the intention of the directors of the Pavilion Cinema and Cafe Limited to spend a considerable amount of money, estimated to be between £4,000 and £7,000, in further improving the existing amenities and accommodation;

8. That by two deeds of assignment, dated respectively the 10th August, 1964, and made between Denis J. Buckley of the one part and the Pavilion Cinema and Cafe Limited of the other part, and the 25th August, 1964, and made between Mary Barry of the one part and the Pavilion Cinema and Café Limited of the other part, the Pavilion Cinema and Café acquired the immediate interests in the licensed premises known as no. 1 Coal Quay in the City of Cork with the licence attaching thereto for the sum of £1,200 and now holds the same with vacant possession under an indenture of lease, dated the 1st January, 1857, made between Eliza Crooke, William Boyle Crooke and Richard Lloyd Hawkes of the one part and John Firmo of the other part for a term of 300 years from 1st January, 1857, subject to the yearly rent of £18...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Application of Perfect Pies Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1994
    ...522 MCGRATH (APPL OF), IN RE UNREP O'HANLON 4.8.87 1987/7/1912 CHARTON INVESTMENTS, IN RE UNREP O'HANLON 4.8.87 1987/5/1380 WARD, IN RE 1966 IR 413, 101 ILTR 161 POWERS SUPERMARKETS LTD 103 ILTR 137 COMPETITION ACT 1991 URBAN RENEWAL ACT 1986 Synopsis: EVIDENCE Onus of proof Discharge - Ne......
  • Re Tivoli Cinema Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 January 1992
    ...V JOHNSON UNREP SUPREME 31.7.80 1980/18/3219 GORMAN, IN RE UNREP MCWILLIAM 31.7.1980 WRIGHT, R V CORK JUSTICES 1906 2 IR 347 WARD, IN RE 1966 IR 413, 101 ILTR 161 WALLS, IN RE 103 ILTR 113 MCGRATH, IN RE UNREP O'HANLON 4.8.87 CHARTON INVESTMENTS LTD UNREP O'HANLON 4.8.87 JAGGERS RESTAURAN......
  • Iyaba v Residential Tenancies Board
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 11 August 2023
    ...of the term “ vicinity”, albeit in the different context of liquor licensing legislation. The Supreme Court in In the matter of Ward [1966] I.R. 413 (at 424 to 425) noted that the term “ vicinity” was imprecise and bore the same meaning as “ neighbourhood”: “The words, ‘vicinity’ and ‘neigh......
  • Application of Walls
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1969
    ...the business carried on in any licensed premises in the neighbourhood merely by reason of their situation. In re Ward, ApplicantIRDLTR [1966] I.R. 413, 101 ILTR. 161 considered. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT