The Court of Appeal upheld findings that Dundalk Racing (1999) Limited breached the Pitch Rules when it demanded an €8,000 capital contribution from bookmakers seeking pitches at the redeveloped Dundalk racecourse in 2007. But it set aside damages awarded to Francis Hyland, John Hughes and Patrick O’Hare, finding they had failed to mitigate their losses by rejecting an offer to stand at the track.
In a judgment delivered on 1 June 2017, the court dismissed Dundalk’s appeal against findings that the Pitch Rules were enforceable by individual bookmakers and applied to the allocation of pitches when racing resumed at Dundalk. The court concluded that, for the purposes of those rules, the redeveloped venue remained substantially the same racecourse that had operated before its closure in 2001. The rules therefore required pitches to be allocated according to the bookmakers’ previous seniority and did not permit the capital contribution.
The court also rejected Dundalk’s argument that the Pitch Rules breached competition law. It held that Rule 19, concerning the introduction of all-weather racing, did not suspend the existing rules. In the absence of an agreement between the racecourse and bookmakers’ associations on how the rules should apply, the rules already in force continued to apply.
However, the appeal court found the trial judge had given weight to concerns about the effect of paying Dundalk on disputes at other racecourses. Those concerns did not excuse each bookmaker’s personal duty to mitigate the loss claimed in the contract cases. The court said the bookmakers acted unreasonably when they rejected Dundalk’s offer of 8 August 2007, which would have allocated pitches using the old seniority list, subject to an €8,000 payment. They could have taken the pitches and pursued their contractual claims, including seeking recovery of the payment.
As a result, the awards of €23,929 to Hyland, €41,484 to Hughes and €49,070 to O’Hare were set aside. The court did not decide the bookmakers’ appeals against reductions to those awards because it concluded no damages should have been awarded.
The court also vacated the declarations in the High Court orders that there had been an unlawful collective trade boycott in which the plaintiffs participated. It found no subsisting finding that any of the three had taken part; the evidence of a single incident involving Hughes did not establish his participation in the collective boycott. The court dismissed O’Hare’s appeal over refusal of an order requiring Dundalk to allocate him a pitch, citing his delay and prejudice to the bookmaker then using it.
The Court of Appeal said it would hear counsel on the orders to be made, including changes to the High Court orders. The judgment did not itself set out those final orders.