Royal Dublin Society v Revenue Commissioners

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Keane, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 May 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] IESC 45
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 171 of 1998]
• Date: 19 May 1999

[1999] IESC 45

THE SUPREME COURT

Hamilton, C.J.

Denham, J.

Barrington, J.

Keane, J.

Lynch, J.

Appeal No. 171/98

ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY v. THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

BETWEEN

ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY

Appellant

AND

THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Respondent

Citations:

EXCISE ACT 1835 S7

EXCISE ACT 1835 S7(1)

DUBLIN STAGE REGULATION ACT 1786 S1

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMDT ACT 1890 S51(1)

PUBLIC DANCE HALLS ACT 1935 S14(1)

PUBLIC DANCE HALLS ACT 1935 S2(2)

INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1927 S21(1)

INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1927 S1(1)

INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1927 S21

INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1927 S20(1)

POINT EXHIBITION CO LTD V REVENUE COMMISSIONERS 1993 2 IR 551

LICENSING ACT 1872 S7

ALLEN V EMMERSON 1944 1 KB 362

DPP V TIVOLI CINEMA LTD 1999 2 IR 260 1999 2 ILRM 153

KEEGAN & LYSAGHT, STATE V STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642

ABENGLEN PROPERTIES LTD, STATE V DUBLIN CORP 1984 IR 381

ANDERSON V ANDERSON 1895 1 QB 749

BENNION STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 2ED 860–863

Synopsis

Licensing

Licensing; statutory interpretation; appellants seek "theatre licence" in order to sell intoxicating liquor on premises; grant of said "theatre licence" refused by respondents; whether appellants" premises are a "theatre or other place of public entertainment"; whether decision of respondents was erroneous in point of law; whether interpretation of "theatre or other place of public entertainment" is governed by the ejusdem generis rule; whether relief by way of judicial review available to appellants; whether respondents were entitled to err within jurisdiction; whether the error of law, if such it was, was apparent on the face of the record; whether once the District Court had found the premises to be a place of public entertainment, the respondents were obliged to grant the "theatre licence" sought; s.7, Excise Act, 1835.

Held: Order of certiorari granted; interpretation of "theatre or other place of public entertainment" is not governed by the ejusdem generis rule; jurisdiction of respondents as to whether the premises are a "place of public entertainment" is not pre-empted by decision of the District Court.

Royal Dublin Society v. The Revenue Commissioners - Supreme Court: Hamilton C.J., Denham J., Barrington J., Keane J., Lynch J.

19/05/1999 - [2000] 1 IR 270

Judicial review does lie in a case such as the present where the point at issue is whether a licensing authority, from which there is no right of appeal, has applied the law correctly and the Court could not conclude that the respondent could, on an erroneous interpretation of the law, deprive an applicant of his right to earn a livelihood and that such a decision would be outside the scope of judicial review. Further, the trial judge erred in law in applying the ejusdem generis rule of interpretation to the expression "theatre or other place of public entertainment" which lead to an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the expression. The Supreme Court so held in quashing the decision of the respondent.

1 JUDGMENT delivered the 19th day of May, 1999 by Keane, J.

2 The extensive grounds and buildings owned by the appellants ("the RDS") at Ballsbridge include a large indoor arena known as the Simmonscourt Pavilion ("the pavilion"). This was built in the mid-1970s, principally to accommodate exhibitions such as that associated with the famous Spring Show, stabling for that show and the equally celebrated Horse Show, and bloodstock sales. When planning permission was sought for the building from Dublin Corporation, it was stated that it would also be suitable for other uses, such as indoor show jumping and other sports events, ice-skating shows, community amenity requirements and other future uses which would require large covered spaces.

3 In or around the month of July 1993, the RDS decided to upgrade the facilities at the Simmonscourt Pavilion. This was with a view to meeting what was seen as an increased demand for the holding of concerts, ice-shows, operas and other public entertainments in the pavilion which would require large covered spaces. Permission was granted by the Corporation for the erection of a single storey meeting room, dressing rooms and toilets at the rear of the pavilion and a fire safety certificate pursuant to the relevant legislation was also granted by the Corporation. The cost of upgrading the pavilion in order to make it suitable for such purposes amounted to £691,000.

4 The pavilion could not be used for the contemplated new range of activities unless a public music and singing licence was first obtained in the District Court pursuant to s.51 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890 ("The 1890 Act"). Such a licence was duly applied for and granted by the District Court.

5 The RDS then entered into correspondence with the excise licensing section of the Respondents with a view to obtaining a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor in the pavilion under s.7 of the Excise Act 1835 ("the 1835 Act"). This is a form of licence generally, and in this judgment, referred to as a "theatre licence". In a letter of the 8th August 1994, the deputy chief executive of the RDS, Mr. Gerry McAuliffe referred to a number of what he described as major theatrical and stage events which had already been held in the pavilion, including the Bolshoi and Kirov Ballets, the Sofia National Opera, Walt Disney's World on Ice show (on three occasions), the Moscow State Circus, the Eurovision Song Contest, (twice), Luciano Pavarotti, Neil Diamond, John Denver and Chris de Burgh. He also referred to other entertainments which had taken place there such as Funderland, the TSB Women's Tennis Classic, boxing matches, basketball matches and Holiday World. In their reply, the Respondents sought further details as to what the RDS had in mind and also asked for facilities for inspection by one of their officers. In particular, they required information as to the proposed events for 1995. In his reply, Mr. McAuliffe indicated that the only events in respect of which there were bookings at that stage were Funderland, Holiday World, The Farm Machinery Show, the Brighter Homes and DIY Exhibition, the "Head to Toe" Fashion Show, The Kerrygold Horse Show and Walt Disney's World on Ice Show. On the 27th April 1995, the Respondents replied as follows:-

"I refer to your letter of 20th January 1995 and previous correspondence regarding your clients" application for a licence under s. 7 of the Excise Act 1835."

"In order to obtain a licence under s. 7 of the Excise Act 1835 your clients" premises must be a "place of public entertainment" within the meaning of that section. The question of what is a place of public entertainment within the meaning of the section was considered by Mr. Justice Geoghegan in the case of the Point Exhibition Company Limited v. The Revenue Commissioners,the High Court, 3rd of March, 1993."

"The Revenue Commissioners have examined your clients" application for a licence in the light of the judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegan referred to above and having regard to the activities currently being held in your client's premises."

"Having examined the application in respect of the Royal Dublin Society and in view of the nature of the activities performed there, it is the view of the Revenue Commissioners that your clients" premises is not a place of public entertainment within the meaning of s. 7 of the Excise Act 1835 and accordingly a licence under that section cannot be granted."

6 On the 27th of April 1996, the Chief Executive of the RDS, Mr. Shane Cleary, wrote to the Respondents inviting them to reconsider their decision, inter alia on the following ground:-

"Simmonscourt Pavilion has hosted since 1925 pop concerts, ice-shows, exhibitions, the Bolshoi Ballet, the Kirov Ballet, operas, the Eurovision Song Contest, Funderland, the TSB Women's Tennis Classic, indoor horse shows and a host of concerts of world famous stars. Appendix F contains a list of events hosted at the Simmonscourt Pavilion since 1983 up to the present day. Many of the events previously hosted at the Simmonscourt Pavilion have since been hosted at The Point Exhibition Company Limited. Also a number of events which have been hosted at The Point have similarly been hosted at the Simmonscourt Pavilion and have since been hosted at The Point Exhibition Company Limited. Since the granting of a licence to sell beers, wines and spirits to The Point Exhibition Company Limited in 1993, many bookings which would in the normal course of events have come to the Simmonscourt Pavilion have been lost to The Point Exhibition Company Limited and as a result [of] the failure of the Revenue Commissioners to grant the Society its entitled theatre licence it is considerably disadvantaged economically thereby."

7 In their reply of the 8th July 1996, the Respondents maintained their position that the RDS were not entitled to a theatre licence under s.7 of the 1835 Act.

8 On the 12th May 1997, the RDS were granted leave to apply by way of judicial review for, inter alia, the following relief:-

9 1. An order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Respondents refusing to grant to the RDS a theatre licence pursuant to s.7 of the 1835 Act.

10 2. An order of mandamus directing the Respondents to grant to the RDS a theatre licence pursuant to s.7.

11 3. A declaration that the RDS was entitled to a theatre licence pursuant to s.7.

12 Leave was granted on the grounds that:-

13 (1) The Respondents had failed to consider the application in accordance with law.

14 (2) The decision of the Respondents was patently unreasonably and irrational and one which no reasonable body or person would have formed on the evidence before them.

15 (3) In reaching their decision, the Respondents had failed to comply with the principles of natural and constitutional justice.

16 A...