The High Court has refused all the relief sought by James and Margaret Stakem in a judicial review of Wicklow County Council’s decision to award food trading and car park franchises at Glendalough’s upper car park to Irish Popcorn and Snack Food Company Limited.
Mr Justice White delivered judgment on 1 June 2017. The applicants sought orders to quash the company’s casual trading licence and the council’s decisions allowing it to trade, along with declarations, an injunction and an order directing prosecution. Their grounds included claims that the company was trading outside the designated casual trading area and beyond the terms of the tender and contract.
The applicants had held leases for the site, first for three years from March 2011 and then for a further two years from March 2014, ending on 7 March 2016. The council had advertised franchises for the 2016-17 period. The company’s tenders for both the food van and overall car park operation were accepted on 29 January 2016. The applicants’ tenders were unsuccessful.
The applicants’ solicitors had served a notice of intention to claim relief for a new tenancy on 11 January 2016. The court said the council was not obliged to stop the tender process at that point. It interpreted section 28 of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 as giving a tenant the right to remain in occupation pending the new tenancy application from the date the Civil Bill issued, rather than from the earlier notice of intention. The Civil Bill issued on 1 March 2016.
Separate High Court proceedings resulted in interim orders in March and April 2016 concerning the company’s trading location and a 10-metre separation from the applicants’ premises. The court recorded that the applicants accepted the company was then in full compliance with the April order. It also noted that the applicants had obtained effective relief in those proceedings pending the Circuit Court case about a new lease.
In the judicial review, the court considered it was legitimately open to the council to proceed with the tender after weighing the applicants’ deed of renunciation and the potential effect of suspending the process. It found no legitimate expectation that the applicants would receive a future lease or casual trading licence. The court determined, for this judicial review, that the company had acted legally and complied with the separate High Court order.
The court said its discretion favoured the notice party, which had successfully tendered, and refused all the relief sought. It did not grant the requested orders to quash the licence or council decisions, restrain trading, or direct prosecution.