Judgment: 2015-01-09 · Court archive

High Court awards bookmaker €23,929 over lost Dundalk pitch

In a supplementary judgment on damages, the court allowed full recovery for the first year’s losses, reduced later losses for failure to mitigate, and valued the lost pitch at €15,000.

High Court · [2015] IEHC 57

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Frances Hyland (Plaintiff)
  • Gerard Hogan (Judge)
What

In a supplementary judgment on damages, the court allowed full recovery for the first year’s losses, reduced later losses for failure to mitigate, and valued the lost pitch at €15,000.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dundalk Racecourse
  • Dundalk
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court awarded bookmaker Frances Hyland €23,929 in damages after finding that Dundalk Racing (1999) Limited breached rules governing bookmakers’ pitches at Dundalk Racecourse. The supplementary judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 9 January 2015, dealt only with mitigation and the amount of damages; the court had found liability in an earlier judgment.

The High Court awarded bookmaker Frances Hyland €23,929 in damages after finding that Dundalk Racing (1999) Limited breached rules governing bookmakers’ pitches at Dundalk Racecourse. The supplementary judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 9 January 2015, dealt only with mitigation and the amount of damages; the court had found liability in an earlier judgment.

The dispute followed Dundalk’s reopening in August 2007 after redevelopment. The company sought a capital contribution of about €8,000 from bookmakers seeking pitches. In its earlier ruling, the court held that the Racecourse Executives’ Seniority and Pitch Rules were a binding contract and that Dundalk had breached them by seeking the payment from a bookmaker with established seniority. The court had also held that the reopened venue was not a new racecourse for the purposes of those rules.

On mitigation, Dundalk argued that Hyland should have paid the contribution without prejudice, taken a pitch and then sued to recover the money. The judge found that Hyland was not unreasonable initially in refusing the offer. The dispute involved a point of principle with wider implications for bookmakers at other racecourses, and both sides misunderstood what the Pitch Tribunal had decided. It had ruled only that the rules did not cover a new racecourse; it had not decided whether Dundalk was one.

The court found, however, that after the early months of 2008 it became unreasonable for Hyland to continue refusing a pitch, once it was clear the dispute would not be resolved quickly and would require a court decision. The judge allowed 100% of losses for the first 12 months from August 2007 to August 2008, but reduced damages for subsequent years by 80% to reflect the failure to mitigate.

The court valued Hyland’s lost pitch at €15,000. It considered expert evidence and actual pitch transfers, but said average resale prices did not adequately reflect the individual value of premium pitches or the circumstances when Hyland lost his pitch in August 2007. The judge also awarded €8,929 for lost profits: €4,059 for the first year and 20% of the remaining claim.

The total award was €23,929. The judgment records a decree for that amount in Hyland’s favour.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review