O'Connell v The Turf Club

Last updated

O'Connell & anor -v- The Turf Club
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case name O'Connell & anor -v- The Turf Club
Decided25/06/2015
Citation IESC 57
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judges sitting Denham CJ, Murray J, Hardiman J, O'Donnell J, Dunne J
Case opinions
Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland.
Keywords

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [1] [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts. [2]

Contents

Factual background

The Turf club (Respondent) was the Irish regulatory body for horse racing until the end of 2017. It established and enforced the rules of flat racing in Ireland. [3] O'Connell (Appellant) was a professional jockey, and his co-appellant (Lambe) was a horse trainer. The Turf Club alleged that O'Connell failed to ride a horse called "Yachvilli" to its maximum ability in Downpatrick (Co Down) in 2011 which was contrary to the Rules of Racing. [1]

The Turf club had then carried out an inquiry into an alleged suspicious betting pattern, the allegation being that the horse was prevented from running to its full ability. O'Connell and Anor were respectively interviewed by the respondent who served them with documents detailing their alleged breaches of the Rules of Racing with the possibility of sanctions. O'Connell and Lambe then instituted judicial review proceedings in the High Court. [4]

O'Connell and Anor did not argue procedural unfairness or the misapplication of the horse racing rules but they challenged the very basis of the rules itself. [5] They alleged that the governing statute, Irish Horse Racing Industry Act 1994 did not set out the principles and policies which outlined the powers of the club as required by Article 15.2.1 of the Irish Constitution. In effect they were seeking a declaration from the courts that the Turf's clubs enforcement of rules of racing were 'ultra vires'. [6]

McGovern J, in his ruling had found that since the introduction of the Irish Horse Racing Act in 1994, the Turf club had the statutory duty to enforce the rules within the 32 counties. [7] The High court held that the Turf club did not exercise a delegated legislative function nor did it perform a judicial one. They also found that O'Connell and Lambe had not established any grounds to allow the court to rule in their favor. [8]

O'Connell then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and the Turf Club cross appealed the judgement that its decisions are amenable to judicial review. [6]

Holding of the Supreme Court

Writing on behalf of the majority in the Supreme Court, O'Donnell J, held that the Turf club was amenable to judicial review and proceeded to dismiss the club's cross appeal. His reasoning behind this decision was narrowly expressed and stated that "it is clear that in the aftermath of the 1994 Act, the Turf Club as the Racing Regulatory Body is more clearly in the domain of public law than the Institute of Chartered Accountants was in Geoghegan v Institute of Chartered Accountants, and sufficiently within the field of public law and within the public domain, as to have the consequence that judicial review lies". [9]

The Court had also made reference to the case Hyland v Dundalk Racing [2014] IEHC 60 [10] when reaching their decision stating that "given that the Oireachtas has entrusted these functions by statute to those bodies [Racing Regulatory Body] in the public interest, this means that these bodies are, in principle, at least amenable to judicial review".

The Court also determined that the Horse Racing Industry Act 1994 had not changed the essential legal character of the Turf Club and did not render it a creature of legal statute. The Turf Club's ability to enforce compliance with its rules were grounded on the law of contract. [11] The Courts also dismissed the appeal made by O'Connell and Lambe stating that the fundamental premise of which the appellants arguments' was based were false. [12]

O'Connell v The Turf Club [2015] IESC 57

See also


Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Palles</span> Irish judge (1831–1920)

Christopher Palles was an Irish barrister, Solicitor-General, Attorney-General and a judge for over 40 years. His biographer, Vincent Thomas Hyginus Delany, described him as "the greatest of the Irish judges". He served as the last Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer from 1874 until his retirement from the bench in 1916.

<i>Callan v Ireland & The Attorney General</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Callan v Ireland& The Attorney General, [2013] IESC 35; [2013] IR 267; [2013] ILRM 257, was an Irish Supreme Court case which ruled on the decision to commute the sentence of death imposed on Callan to penal servitude for 40 years without allowing for remission. Noel Callan had been sentenced to death in 1985 but had his sentence commuted to 40 years of penal servitude by the President of Ireland, Patrick Hillery. The High Court rejected Callan's appeal that he was eligible for remission. Callan then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Callan was indeed serving imprisonment and so by law could request remission of his penalty.

<i>Nottinghamshire County Council v B</i> 2011 Irish Supreme Court case

Nottinghamshire County Council v B[2011] IESC 48; [2013] 4 IR 662 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court refused to overturn an order of the High Court returning children of married parents from England to that jurisdiction, following a request by the English courts under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Sweeney v Governor of Loughan House Open Centre</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

<i>Dunne v Donohoe</i> Irish supreme court case

Dunne v Donohoe [2002] IESC 35, [2002] 2 IR 533 was an Irish Supreme Court Case wherein the court held that a Garda Superintendent was a persona designata and that a guideline issued the Garda Commissioner that imposed fixed preconditions to applications for a firearm certificate would result in the superintendent acting Ultra Vires. By ruling that the guideline interfered with the status of a superintendent as a persona designata, the Court provided an important finding in establishing the limits of discretionary powers under the Irish constitution and the legal standing of guidelines issued under the auspices of a national body.

<i>Kelly v Trinity College Dublin</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Kelly v Trinity College Dublin[2007] IESC 61; [2007] 12 JIC 1411; is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that former employments or associations are insufficient, in the absence of other evidence, to disqualify a person from participating in disciplinary or similar tribunals related to that former employment.

<i>Goold v Collins</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Goold v Collins and Ors [2004] IESC 38, [2004] 7 JIC 1201 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a statutory provision's constitutionality may be reviewed only at the behest of a litigant who is contesting some current application of that provision.

<i>Grace v An Bórd Pleanála</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors[2017] IESC 10 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the criteria for ''standing'' in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.

<i>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<i>AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors, [2017] IESC 80, was an Irish Supreme Court case which arose from the judgment delivered by Cooke J in the High Court on 17 May 2012, due to the fact that the applicant AAA and her children were deported to Nigeria in 2011. The court held that "as a rule" there is no right to an oral hearing in an application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and subsidiary protection where there has already been oral hearings in relation to an application for asylum. This decision clarified the grounds under which a claim for subsidiary protection could be heard.

<i>A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison[2006] IESC 45; [2006] 4 IR 88; [2006] 2 ILRM 481, the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that a finding that criminal legislation is unconstitutional need not render existing convictions void.

<i>Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775, is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning costs in public interest challenges. The Court allowed an appeal against the order for costs made in the High Court and also granted costs against the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.

<i>T(D) v L(F) & Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy, [2010] IESC 17; [2010] 3 IR 77, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that inpatient treatment with a restriction order attached to it in a European Arrest Warrant came within the meaning of "detention order" in s.10(d) of the European Warrant Act 2003. This gave the definition of "detention order" a wide meaning. The case involved an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom.

<i>K. (C.) v K.</i> (J.) Irish Supreme Court case

K. (C.) v K. (J.)[2004] IESC 21; [2004] 1 IR 224, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the doctrine of estoppel could not be used to change the status of a person, when the status, as a matter of law, never actually changed.

<i>Board of Management St. Molagas National School v The Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Board of Management St. Molaga's National School v The Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science [2010] IESC 57, [2011] 1 IR 362, is a case in which the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that under Section 29 of the Education Act 1998, the decision of a school's board of management to refuse to enrol a student may be subject to a full re-hearing by an appeals committee appointed by the Minister for Education.

<i>Irwin v Deasy</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Liam J. Irwin v Thomas Deasy Carmel Deasy[2011] IESC 15; [2011] 2 IR 752 is an Irish Supreme Court case which primarily concerned the authority of the court to order a sale of the lands in place of their partition and the potential effect that would have on the interests of the co-owners.

<i>Murphy v County Wexford VEC</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Murphy v County Wexford VEC[2004] IESC 49; [2004] 4 IR 202 is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning a personal injury case appealed to the Supreme Court from the High Court. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries as a result of "horseplay." The Court held there was a duty of care on the VEC to provide supervision at lunchtime." Despite having implemented steps to control such behaviour, it was found that the defendants/appellants failed in their obligations towards the plaintiff/respondent.

<i>Murphy v Ireland</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others[2014] IESC 19; [2014] 1 ILRM 457; [2014] 1 IR 198; was an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is not required to provide information justifying a decision to hold a trial in the Special Criminal Court, unless it can be shown the decision was made mala fides. This decision further specified that the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) neither specified the nature of a fair trial nor identified trial-by-jury as a right.

References

  1. 1 2 "O'Connell & anor -v- The Turf Club [2015] IESC 57 (25 June 2015)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  2. ↑ eBuildWebSolutions.com. "Hayes Solicitors, Solicitors in Dublin, Ireland - Law Firm. The Turf Club - is it amenable to judicial review?". hayes-solicitors.ie. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
  3. ↑ "IHRB Home". www.ihrb.ie. Retrieved 9 October 2019.
  4. ↑ "O'Connell & Anor v The Turf Club: Turf Club decisions amenable to judicial review, but its powers arise from private law". SCOIRLBLOG. 28 June 2015. Retrieved 9 October 2019.
  5. ↑ "The Scope of Judicial Review in Ireland: O'Connell v The Turf Club [2015] IESC 57; [2017] 2 I.R. 43". Paul Daly. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  6. 1 2 "O'Connell & Anor v The Turf Club: Turf Club decisions amenable to judicial review, but its powers arise from private law". SCOIRLBLOG. 28 June 2015. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  7. ↑ "O'Connell & anor -v- The Turf Club & anor [2014] IEHC 175 (03 April 2014)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  8. ↑ "Trainer and jockey lose their Supreme Court appeal over horseracing rules". The Irish Times. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
  9. ↑ Ireland, Courts Service of. "O'Connell & anor -v- The Turf Club : Judgments & Determinations : Courts Service of Ireland". www.courts.ie. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  10. ↑ "Hyland -v- Dundalk Racing (1999) Ltd t/a Dundalk Stadium [2014] IEHC 60 (19 February 2014)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  11. ↑ E.G -v- The Society of Actuaries in Ireland [2017] IEHC 392 at 63.
  12. ↑ [2015] IESC 57 at 51.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.