The High Court refused Gleneagle Hotel (Killarney) Limited’s request to adjourn a hearing in its challenge to Cork City Council’s event centre funding decision. The court changed the filing timetable so the respondent’s applications could be ready for hearing on 7 and 8 May 2020, if possible.
The underlying proceedings concern the council’s decision to award a contract for partial funding of an event centre in Cork to BAM Contractors Limited. The council has applied to lift the automatic suspension of that decision and to dismiss the hotel company’s case for lack of eligibility. Those applications had been listed for a two-day hearing.
The hotel company sought an adjournment to the week beginning 16 June. Its solicitors said the business had closed because of the COVID-19 crisis, more than 500 employees had been placed on temporary layoff, and the company could not give the instructions needed to prepare its replying affidavit. They also said it was discussing with the HSE the possible use of its Killarney hotel as a care facility during the pandemic.
The council opposed postponing the hearing. Its solicitors argued that delay could jeopardise the project because of cost implications, with serious financial and employment consequences for Cork and the surrounding area. They said the proceedings were urgent, while agreeing to a revised timetable that would give the hotel company additional time without changing the hearing dates.
Justice David Barniville accepted that the hotel company had faced major difficulties due to the crisis, and that its attention had likely been focused on its business, employees and discussions with the HSE. He also accepted the council’s case that the proceedings, particularly its applications, were urgent.
The judge said it was uncertain whether High Court cases could be heard remotely in the coming term, or whether a physical hearing would be possible under the restrictions then in force. He said the council’s applications should nevertheless be prepared to proceed on the assigned dates, while acknowledging that a later adjournment might still be necessary if no hearing could take place.
The hotel company was given until 20 April to file its replying affidavit or affidavits. The council’s outline submissions were due on 21 April, with further affidavit deadlines set for 27 April and 4 May. The hotel company’s written submissions were due on 4 May. The court gave both sides liberty to apply by correspondence about the timetable and, once the position became clearer, whether a remote hearing could be arranged. The adjournment application’s costs were made costs in the cause.