Sports Arena Ltd v O'Reilly

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Blayney
• Judgment Date: 24 June 1987
• Neutral Citation: 1987 WJSC-HC 2239
• Docket Number: [1987 No. 70 J.R.],No 70/987
• Court: High Court
• Date: 24 June 1987

1987 WJSC-HC 2239

No 70/987

SPORTS ARENA LTD v. O'REILLY

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

SPORTS ARENA LIMITED

APPLICANT

AND

DISTRICT JUSTICE AODHAGHAN O'REILLY

RESPONDENT

Citations:

GAMING & LOTTERIES ACT 1956 S15

GAMING & LOTTERIES ACT 1956 S16(1)(a)

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51(1)

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2

TURLEY, STATE V O'FLOINN 1968 IR 245

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51

AG V BEIRNE 1943 IR 480, 77 ILTR 74

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S52

AG V BURKE 1955 IR 30

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S5

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S4

Synopsis:

CASE STATED

District Justice

Jurisdiction - Disclaimer - Substantive application - Application struck out - Refusal to state Case - Application for mandamus - Jurisdiction of District Justice to state Case unaffected by his disclaimer of jurisdiction to determine substantive application - ~See~ District Court, jurisdiction - (1987/70 JR - Blayney J. - 24/6/87) 1987 IR 185

|Sports Arena Ltd. v. O'Reilly|

DISTRICT COURT

Jurisdiction

Disclaimer - Case Stated - Request - Refusal - Reason not given - Judicial review - Mandamus - Power of District Justice to state a Case for the opinion of the High Court on the correctness of his decision to strike out an application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to determine it - The applicants sought an order, pursuant to s.15 of the Act of 1956, granting them a certificate which authorised a gaming licence to be issued to them - The respondent District Justice refused to entertain the application on the ground that the applicants had failed to give the local authority and the gardai 28 days notice of the application, as required by s.16, sub-s. 1, of the Act - The respondent struck out the application and the applicants then asked him to state a Case for the opinion of the High Court on the correctness of his decision - The respondent refused to state a Case without expressing a reason for his refusal - Having obtained leave, the applicants sought in th High Court an order of mandamus directing the respondent to state such Case - Held that the only ground permitted by s.4 of the Act of 1857 for a refusal to state a Case pursuant to s.2 (as amended) was that the refusal was merely frivolous in the opinion of the District Justice - Held that it must be assumed that the respondent's refusal to state a Case stemmed from an opinion, held by him, that the applicant's request was merely frivolous - Held that a request for a Case Stated was not frivolous where the purpose of the request was to obtain the opinion of the High Court on the question whether failure by an applicant to satisfy the requirements of s.16, sub-s. 1, of the Act of 1956 deprived a District Justice of jurisdiction to determine an application by that applicant pursuant to s.15 of the Act - Held that, although the respondent had formed the view that he had no jurisdiction to determine the applicants’ application made pursuant to s.15 of the Act of 1956, the respondent had jurisdiction to state a Case pursuant to s.2 of the Act of 1857 (as amended by s.51 of the Act of 1961), when so requested by the applicants, for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the High Court on the said question - ~Attorney General v. Beirne~ [1943] IR 480 distinguished - Held that the applicants were entitled to an order of mandamus directing the respondent to state and sign a Case setting forth the facts and the grounds of his determination - Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, ss.2, 4 - Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, ss.15, 16 - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, s.51 - (1987/70 JR - Blayney J. - 24/6/87) 1987 IR 185

|Sports Arena Ltd. v. O'Reilly|

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Mandamus

District Justice - Jurisdiction - Disclaimer - Case Stated - Request - Refusal - Order directing District Justice to state a Case for the opinion of the High Court - ~See~ District Court, jurisdiction - (1987/70 JR - Blayney J. - 24/6/87) 1987 IR 185

|Sports Arena Ltd. v. O'Reilly|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Blayney delivered the 24th day of June 1987.

2 This is an application for an Order of Mandamus directing the Respondent to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. It raises a difficult point of law as to the power of a District Justice to state a case where he has struck out an application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear it.

THE FACTS.

3 On the 4th February 1987 the Applicant, which was then the holder of a licence under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956(hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act) in respect of premises at 4 Talbot Lane and 24 Marlborough Street, respectively, applied under Section 15 of the 1956 Act for certificates in respect of each of the premises authorising the issue of a licence permitting gaming at the said premises.

4 Dublin Corporation objected on two grounds to the licence being granted: firstly, on the ground that the Dublin City Council had passed a resolution on the 27th January 1986 rescinding the adoption of Part III of the 1956 Act, and secondly, on the ground that the Corporation had not received 28 days' notice in writing of the Applicant's intention to apply for a licence, as required by Section 16, subsection (1) (a) of the 1956 Act.

5 The Respondent did not accede to the first ground of objection, but in regard to the second, the evidence being that a notice dated the 7th January 1987 of the application to be made on the 4th February had been posted to the Corporation on the 7th January, he stated that he was not satisfied that the 28 days' notice had been given, and accordingly he took the view that as Section 16(1) (a) had not been complied with the application was not properly before him. The Respondent invited the solicitor for the Applicant to withdraw the applications and, on his refusal to do so, he struck them out.

6 On the 6th February 1987 the Respondent fixed recognizances in the event of an appeal to the Circuit Court, and on the same date the Applicant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent's determination as being erroneous in point of law, applied to him to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and grounds of such determination for the opinion thereon of the High Court. This was refused by the Respondent, his refusal being conveyed to the Applicant's solicitor in a letter dated the 26th February 1987 from the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Metropolitan District Court. The Applicant's case is that the Respondent was not entitled to refuse to state a case and he seeks an Order of Mandamus directing him to do so.

7 On the 10th February 1987 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Circuit Court against the Respondent's decision striking out the applications.

THE LAW.

8 Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 (hereinafter referred to as the 1857 Act) provides as follows:

"After the Hearing and Determination by a Justice or Justices...