THE RDS was given leave in the High Court yesterday to challenge a refusal to grant a licence which would allow the serving of alcohol during concerts and exhibitions at the Simmonscourt Pavilion.
The RDS, Ballsbridge, Dublin was seeking to have quashed a decision of the Revenue Commissioners which refused to grant a theatre licence, which would allow for a seven day intoxicating liquor licence.
Mr John Gordon SC, for the RDS, said it was seeking a licence to sell liquor on the Simmonscourt premises like The Point, its main competitor.
In an affidavit, Mr Gerard McAuliffe, RDS deputy chief executive, said that in July 1993 proposals were made to upgrade facilities at the Simmonscourt Pavilion. These were necessary because of an increasing demand to hold concerts, ice shows, operas and other public entertainment events in the pavilion.
Planning permission was received to erect a singlestorey meeting room, dressing rooms and toilets at the rear of the pavilion. The cost incurred by the Society in the upgrading of the pavilion to comply with the requirements of fire safety was £691,000.
The RDS was then granted a public music and singing licence. He then applied for a theatre licence. On April 27th, 1995, the RDS received from the Revenue a letter indicating that the licence was refused on the basis that the premises was not a place of public entertainment.
After further correspondence, the RDS submitted a list of events that had taken place at the pavilion in 1992. In the letter the RDS indicated that the Society was severely inhibited in developing and marketing the Simmonscourt Pavilion as a place of public entertainment because it could not serve intoxicating liquor, especially when events occurred on a Sunday as no occasional licences were available.
The RDS also told the Revenue that the unavailability of a liquor licence severely restricted its marketing of the pavilion as a place of public entertainment and an exhibition centre, particularly when its main competitor for these was The Point, which held a theatre licence.
In a letter dated July 8th, 1996, the Revenue indicated that the vast majority of activities taking place at the pavilion could not be regarded as public entertainment and therefore the premises did not qualify as a "place of public entertainment" within the meaning of the Excise Act.
Mr McAuliffe said he believed the RDS's competitiveness was severely prejudiced compared to similar public entertainment venues. The surprise expressed by potential exhibitors that there was no intoxicating liquor licence attached to the venue continued to prejudice the chances of the RDS in securing exhibitions.
Mr Justice Smyth gave leave to seek a judicial review of the refusal of the Revenue to grant the licence.