The High Court has refused an application by Dublin City Council for an order preventing the Spirit entertainment premises at Dublin's Middle Abbey Street being used as a nightclub.
The application had been opposed by Liffeybeat Ltd which operates the premises.
It contended that Spirit was a "multimedia event centre" with comedy and live entertainment shows. However the council claimed that at specific times the premises as a whole was used as a "nightclub".
In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice John Quirke said no attempt had been made by the council to define "nightclub or similar function type of premises" and the court could not impose its view on how the premises should be used.
The council claimed there had been unauthorised use as a nightclub but the judge said that - apart from the basement - he was not satisfied that unauthorised use within the meaning ascribed to that term by section two of the Planning and Development Act had been proved.
Where a restrictive condition was imposed confining the use of property in a particular manner, some care should be exercised by the party which was imposing the condition to clarify the nature and extent of the restriction imposed.
On the evidence, the council had failed to discharge its obligations either to make the terms of the relevant conditions reasonably comprehensible to interested persons, including the public; or provide clarification to the company as to the nature and extent of a restrictive sub-condition when clarification had been sought.
It had been contended for the council that the term "use as a nightclub" could and would be understood within its ordinary meaning by members of the public without legal training and that the court should "stand in the shoes" of the public for that purpose.
"I do not believe that this court can or should perform such an exercise," added the judge.
Mr Justice Quirke said it had been argued in the proceedings that activities which may currently identify the use of premises as a "nightclub" may differ from activities which would have identified the use of premises as a "nightclub" in former, not too distant, times. He accepted that contention.
Fashions and behavioural trends changed, sometimes radically, with the passage of time.
No evidence was adduced in the proceedings to help the court establish what the council had intended to achieve by imposing the restrictive conditions which it imposed. The court was invited to speculate upon what the council intended to achieve.
That would be wholly inappropriate for the court to do, he said.
The judge added: "It is decidedly not the function of the court to impose its view as to how the premises should be used. This is a planning matter within the remit of the applicant (council).
"It is the responsibility of the applicant to determine how the premises should be used. It is the responsibility of the applicant to do so clearly and coherently," the judge said.