The High Court dismissed Carlow Town Council’s application to stop a District Court judge hearing JayKay Leisure Limited’s application for a certificate connected to a gaming licence. The court held that the District Judge could consider whether resolutions adopting Part III of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 were valid.
The judicial review sought an order prohibiting Judge Patrick Clyne from proceeding with the company’s application under section 15 of the Act. The certificate application concerned premises identified in the judgment as The Burrin Aracde, Carlow Town.
The council argued that no Part III resolution was in force for those premises, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application. It said an area-wide resolution made in 1956 was rescinded in 1981, and that later resolutions covered only three named premises: 7 Charlotte Street, 26 Tullow Street and 14-16 Barrack Street.
The judgment records that the company had previously obtained certificates in 2008, 2009 and 2010, when the council did not appear to oppose the applications. In January 2011, the council’s solicitors told the company’s solicitors that those certificates had been granted in error and future applications would be contested. When the company applied again in March 2012, a dispute arose over the District Court’s jurisdiction and Judge Clyne adjourned the matter. The High Court granted leave for judicial review in April 2012.
The company argued that the council had waived or acquiesced in its objection and was estopped from challenging the District Court’s jurisdiction during the hearing. It also submitted that the District Court could inquire into whether a resolution was in force. The council, in turn, argued that only the High Court or Supreme Court could determine the validity of the older council resolution.
Mr Justice de Valera said the judicial review was misconceived because it sought to interfere before Judge Clyne had an opportunity to consider the arguments. He rejected the council’s contention that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the resolutions, finding no statutory or case-law basis to prevent that inquiry.
The court dismissed the judicial review application. It did not determine whether a valid Part III resolution applied to the company’s premises, or whether the company was entitled to the requested certificate; those matters remained for consideration by the District Court.