High Court makes an award of damages to two former bookmakers at Dundalk Racecourse, following an earlier ruling of the court that the defendant had breached “Pitch Rules” by demanding a capital contribution of some €8,000 from each bookmaker holding a pitch at the racecourse following its re-opening in 2007; but the court refuses an injunction compelling the defendant to restore the first plaintiff to his original pitch.
Plaintiffs’ claim damages by reason of a breach of contract on the part of the defendant racecourse operator - matter has already been extensively dealt with in Hyland v. Dundalk Racing Ltd. [2014] IEHC 60 (“Hyland No.1”) and Hyland v. Dundalk Racing Ltd. (No.2) [2015] IEHC 57 (“Hyland No.2”) - present claims accordingly represent the second and the third respectively of three test cases dealing with questions of damages and other relief which arise in the wake of finding as to liability in Hyland (No.1) - both plaintiffs held established seniorities to trade from a particular bookmaking pitches at Dundalk Racecourse - racecourse closed in 2001 and re-opened in August 2007 as an all-weather track -defendant (“Dundalk”) sought a capital contribution of some €8,000 from each bookmaker holding a pitch at the racecourse - plaintiffs claimed that this demand amounted to a breach of what are known as the Racecourse Executives’ Seniority and Pitch Rules (“the Pitch Rules”) and, hence, to a breach of contract – held in Hyland No.1 that the Pitch Rules amounted to a legally binding contract and that the defendant had breached these Rules by seeking a payment of this kind from bookmakers - present judgment deals solely with questions of mitigation of loss and the quantum of damages - mitigation of loss - valuation of the pitches - whether Mr. O’Hare is entitled to an injunction compelling Dundalk to restore him to his original pitch – for reasons including general application of equitable principles concerning delay, lapse of time and prejudice to third parties, injunction restoring the plaintiff’s original pitch to him is refused - calculation of damages in respect of Mr. O’Hare’s claim – allow Mr. O’Hare a figure of €13,376 by way of lost profits. To this must be added the figure of €35,000 in respect of the loss of the pitch. The total award will accordingly be the sum of €48,376 - total award to Mr. Hughes of €41,484 (€28,000 and €13,484) by way of damages for breach of contract.