Spin Communications Ltd T/A Storm Fm v Independent Radio & Television Commission (Irtc) & Np

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Keane C.J.
• Judgment Date: 14 April 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IESC 56
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 14 April 2000

SPIN COMMUNICATIONS LTD T/A STORM FM v. INDEPENDENT RADIO & TELEVISION COMMISSION (IRTC) & NP

SPIN COMMUNICATIONS t/a STORM FM

.v.

INDEPENDENT RADIO AND TV COMMISSION AND NP

[2000] IESC 56

KEANE C.J.

McGUINNESS J.

GEOGHEGAN J.

79/2000

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

Practice and Procedure

Practice and procedure; applicants raised issue of bias on the part of the IRTC in granting a licence to the notice party; whether High Court judge was in error in declining to award security for costs in favour of the notice party.

Held: Appeal allowed.

Spin Communications t/a Storm FM v. Independent Radio and Television Commission - Supreme Court: Keane C.J., McGuinness J., Geoghegan J. (ex tempore) - 14/04/2000

The applicant had been joined as a notice party in the substantive proceedings. The case concerned allegations of bias surrounding the issue of a radio licence. The applicant had sought an order for security of costs which the trial judge declined to make and the applicant appealed against that refusal. Keane CJ, delivering judgment, held that the trial judge had been in error in the course he had adopted. The notice party had a vital interest in the outcome of the proceedings. The appeal would be allowed and the appropriate order for security of costs would be made.

Citations:

O'KEEFFE V BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39

Keane C.J.

1 It is unnecessary for me to set out the background in detail to this case because it derives to an extent from the same sequence of events as the last case. There is this important difference in this case, that the applicants have raised an express issue of bias on the part of the IRTC in granting the licence to the notice party and in that context the applicants have also abandoned the other grounds so that the sole ground on which the action will now be fought in the High Court is on the ground of bias. Because of that, which he saw as a differentiating factor in that case, while the learned High Court judge awarded security for costs in favour of the IRTC, and that decision is not being appealed from, he declined to make an order for security of costs in favour of the notice party and he did so on the basis, as appears from his brief extempore judgment, that in that case the issue really arose as between the IRTC on the one hand and the applicant on the other hand and that it was a clear issue which only arose between those two parties. He found it difficult to see...