The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge by four solicitors to the transfer of New Ross District Court sittings from a temporary venue in the town to Ardcavan, near Wexford. Mr Justice Hedigan held that the District Court judge had power to transfer all business to another place within his district and dismissed an objection that the solicitors lacked standing.
The challenge concerned the move from the Geraldine O’Hanrahan’s G.A.A. Club House, where the court had sat while the historic New Ross courthouse was closed for renovation, to a temporary courthouse at Ardcavan. The Courts Service advised the County Wexford Solicitors Association on 11 June 2009 that the sittings would move from 30 August. It later confirmed the change by letter on 8 September, and the sittings were transferred.
The solicitors sought to quash the decision, a declaration that the move breached section 26(1)(g) of the Courts of Justice Act 1953, and an order requiring premises to be acquired in or near the New Ross District Court area. They argued that section 26 gave the Courts Service authority over the appointment of court venues, while the judge’s power under section 27 to transfer or adjourn business applied only to individual cases.
The Courts Service said it had considered the move but had not formally ordered it. It maintained that the District Court judge made the decision under section 27(3)(b), which permits business to be transferred to another place in the judge’s district. The move was intended to be temporary, although the judgment said it could last for a number of years because funds to restore the New Ross courthouse were lacking.
The judge accepted that the solicitors had sufficient interest to bring the case. He pointed to the Courts Service’s consultation with at least one applicant and to the solicitors’ professional interest in the decision, including their clients’ interests. He therefore dismissed the respondents’ standing objection.
On the authority to move the sittings, Mr Justice Hedigan found that section 27 was wide enough to permit the judge to transfer all court business where he considered it necessary. He also referred to Supreme Court reasoning in O’Brien v. O’Halloran about temporary arrangements for court sittings, and concluded that the judge had an inherent jurisdiction to make such arrangements as well as powers under section 27.
The court concluded that the applicants were not entitled to the relief sought. The judgment does not grant the requested order to quash the transfer, declaration, or order requiring new premises.