Cork Opera House has lost its legal challenge to the refusal of the Revenue Commissioners to grant it a drinks licence under a licensing arrangement which operated for more than 100 years.
The opera house, which was founded in 1855, had until 2004 secured an excise licence issued annually by Cork City Council under the provisions of the Cork Improvement Act 1868.
However, after a local Garda sergeant had queried the licensing arrangement, the Revenue had in 2004 described the licensing situation as an "anomaly" and had indicated the licence would not be renewed under the 1868 Act.
It was indicated that the opera house would have to secure a public music and singing licence under the Public Health Amendment Acts - issued by the District Court - before the Revenue Commissioners could issue a drinks licence under the Excise Act 1835.
In the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice John Hedigan rejected the opera house's contention that Cork City Council enjoys the statutory powers to grant a licence.
The opera house had claimed that it had secured a licence under the same system for the past 130 years and the Revenue was obliged to take into account that previous practice.
It also claimed that even if there was an anomaly, the licensing system could not be altered except by legislation.
It had taken proceedings because, while the Revenue had in September 2004 granted a further annual licence, it had indicated in correspondence that it was the opera house's last chance and that it would not get a licence under the same scheme in 2005.
The Revenue argued that the city council did not enjoy the power to grant such a licence and that the opera house could have no legitimate expectation that the local authority could confer one.
Mr Justice Hedigan ruled that the opera house could not pursue "on the basis of expectation" a remedy which would require the Revenue to act in a way that was unauthorised by statute.
However, as he was "sympathetic" to the fact that the situation at the opera house had gone on for more than 100 years, the judge said he would make no order in relation to the costs of the proceedings, meaning the sides will bear their own costs.