The High Court refused six solicitors’ request for declarations that the Courts Service was in breach of its statutory duties over the closure of Tipperary courthouse. Mr Justice Birmingham held that the Courts Service’s general duty to provide, manage and maintain court buildings did not require it to provide a particular facility at a particular location.
The applicants, solicitors practising in Tipperary town and members of the Tipperary Bar Association, sought declarations concerning the Courts Service’s duties under the Courts Services Act 1991. They had also sought an order of mandamus directing the service to provide and maintain a suitable courthouse, but did not pursue that remedy at the hearing.
The courthouse, owned by South Tipperary County Council, was built in 1841 and closed in November 2010 after part of its ceiling collapsed. District Court sittings moved to a local theatre, while Circuit Court matters were dealt with in Clonmel, about 25 miles away.
The judgment records that the Courts Service had listed the building for refurbishment in 2008, but said budget constraints prevented it from funding the extensive work needed to bring the courthouse up to modern standards. Limited repairs funded by the Department of Justice and Equality and carried out by the Office of Public Works were intended to prevent further deterioration; the Courts Service said they would not resolve the building’s overall health and safety issues.
The service was reviewing secondary court venues nationwide. Its evidence said no final decision had been made about Tipperary town’s future as a court venue, although permanent closure could not be ruled out.
The applicants argued that the statutory definition of the Courts Service’s functions, which includes a power and duty, imposed a duty to provide court buildings and facilities. Justice Birmingham accepted that the service had such general duties, but said they did not create a specific obligation to maintain a courthouse in a specific place. He cited the service’s power to designate court venues and its obligation to use resources effectively.
The judge said declarations concerning one venue could undermine a coherent national review and unfairly prioritise it over other venues. He distinguished earlier courthouse cases because they arose under a different statutory regime that imposed a clear duty to provide and maintain courthouse accommodation in specified locations. He declined to grant the declarations sought. The judgment did not decide whether Tipperary town would remain a court venue.