The High Court ruled that Dundalk Stadium remained the same racecourse for the purposes of the racing industry’s Pitch Rules after its redevelopment, and declared unlawful a collective boycott of bookmakers who took pitches there after it reopened in 2007.
Mr Justice Hogan held that Dundalk Racing (1999) Ltd had no right under the rules to require bookmakers to pay an €8,000 capital contribution as a condition of taking a pitch. The rules limited the charge to five times the daily admission fee.
The case arose from a dispute over the new stadium and all-weather track, which opened in August 2007 after a €35 million redevelopment. The company argued that the redevelopment created a new racecourse and that the existing rules did not govern pitch allocation there. The Pitch Tribunal had ruled that the rules did not cover a new racecourse, but later clarified that it had not decided whether Dundalk was new.
The judge found continuity in ownership, location, track and tradition, despite the extensive changes and the six-year closure. He concluded that Dundalk was, in substance, the same racecourse for the rules’ purposes. He also found that individual bookmakers affected by the rules could, in principle, sue to enforce them.
The company’s counterclaim also challenged protests held outside the stadium and alleged that the Pitch Rules themselves breached competition law. The court found the protests were generally protected by constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly: protesters remained in a public place and did not obstruct access or trespass. However, the judge found that some protesters verbally abused people entering the stadium. That conduct was unlawful, and the company could have obtained an injunction to restrain it.
The court rejected the claim that the Pitch Rules, generally, violated competition law, finding that their pitch-allocation system supported an orderly and competitive betting ring. But it accepted evidence that bookmakers who took pitches at Dundalk faced pressure and refusals by other bookmakers to lay off bets with them. The judge declared the collective boycott unlawful under section 4(1) of the Competition Act 2002 and said it must end. He said an injunction against named individuals could be considered if necessary; the judgment did not itself grant one.