The High Court has ruled that the Public Dance Halls Act does not require every applicant for a public dancing licence to hold public liability insurance. A District Court may grant a licence without an insurance condition, but must consider the applicant’s ability to compensate people injured through its default and may impose an insurance condition where appropriate.
Mr Justice Dignam delivered the judgment on 20 June 2022 in a consultative case stated from Judge Kennedy of the District Court. The High Court was asked to give its opinion on two questions of law arising from an application by Neville Hotels Unlimited Company for a licence covering dancing at Druids Glen Hotel and Golf Resort in County Wicklow. It did not decide whether the licence should be granted.
The District Court’s stated findings were that the company and its group had moved to self-insurance for non-building and non-construction public liability risks from 1 May 2020. The District Judge accepted evidence that the company had sufficient liquidity, assets and reserves to meet claims likely to arise from dancing at its hotels. The High Court noted it was unclear whether the proposed self-insurance involved a formal arrangement or payment of claims from the company’s resources as they arose; it said that issue was for the District Court to assess on the evidence in individual applications.
The parties agreed there was no statutory insurance precondition. They also accepted that the District Court could consider an applicant’s ability to satisfy claims and, depending on the evidence, could require insurance. The State respondents urged the High Court to make clear that dispensing with insurance would be exceptional. Mr Justice Dignam declined to add that qualification, saying it could come too close to directing how the District Court should assess individual cases.
The judgment held that the applicant’s financial circumstances and ability to compensate injured people are relevant under section 2 of the Act. The District Court is entitled, and on the judge’s interpretation obliged, to consider that ability. Under section 4, it can impose appropriate conditions, including an insurance requirement where it is not satisfied the applicant could otherwise meet valid claims.
The High Court answered “No” to whether an applicant must have public liability insurance before a licence can be granted, and “Yes” to whether a licence can be granted without an insurance condition. It stressed that these answers do not remove the District Court’s responsibility to assess the evidence and the applicant’s financial arrangements in each case.