Legal proceedings held in a judge's chambers have the same legality as those held in open court. It would be possible for someone to challenge them on the basis that their not being held in public had a material impact on the outcome, but such challenges are unknown.
A hearing of a case in chambers is carried out in the presence of the court clerk and either the parties to the case or their legal representatives. Any order that is made is duly recorded and has the same force as one made in open court.
"Chambers" is a rather grand word for what is often, in rural district courts, a modest private office for the judge. Business can often be conducted in these chambers for an assortment of reasons. The main reason is where a family law or child welfare matter is involved, which is required by law not to be heard in public in order to protect the children.
However, if something crops up after the end of a court sitting, and the judge is in his office, he or she may hear the matter there, rather than return to court. There are also instances of district judges dealing with issues with the court registrar and court clerk before the court formally sits. But these are always of a routine and non-controversial kind.
Not every instance of a hearing in chambers is uncontroversial. For example, the warrant authorising the Criminal Assets Bureau to carry out a raid on the office of Dublin solicitors Michael Hanahoe and Co was granted in the district judge's chambers.
However, there is broad consensus in legal circles that there is no reason to hold a licensing application hearing in private, and that doing so is highly unusual.
But that in itself would not make the issuing of the licence illegal. However, questions remain surrounding the procedures that were followed.