Brannigan v the Dublin Corporation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)
• Judgment Date: 03 March 1927
• Date: 03 March 1927
• Docket Number: (1924.—No. 11,828.)

Brannigan v. The Dublin Corporation

MARY ANNE BRANNIGAN

Plaintiff

and

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR, ALDERMEN, AND BURGESSES OF DUBLIN, Defendants (1)

(1924.—No. 11,828.)

Supreme Court.

Trespass - Sanitary authority - Dumping refuse - No leave or licence - Statutory duty or authority - Public Health (Ir.) Act, 1878 (41 & 42Vict. c. 52), sects. 52, 55 - Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), sect. 1.

By sect. 52 of the Public Health (Ir.) Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 52), a sanitary authority is to provide for the cleansing of the streets and the removal of refuse, and all matters collected may be sold or otherwise disposed of. Sect. 1 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), provides that an action shall not lie against any person for"any act done in pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament, or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, duty, or authority" "unless it is commenced within six months next after the act, neglect, or default complained of, or, in case of a continuance of injury or damage, within six months next after the ceasing thereof."

Between May, 1922, and February, 1924, the defendants, the Dublin Corporation, by their servants, deposited rubbish, broken stones, and noxious matter upon the plaintiff's lands. On December 19th, 1924, the plaintiff issued a writ against the defendants, claiming damages for trespass. The defendants, in addition to traverses, pleaded leave and licence, and relied upon the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893. Upon the question of leave and licence there was a conflict of testimony at the trial of the action, and the jury found that no leave and licence had been given by the plaintiff to the defendants. No evidence was given by the defendants that the depositing of the refuse upon the plaintiff's lands (when it commenced) had been authorised by their responsible department, or by its superintendent, or even assistant superintendent.

Held that, assuming that sect. 52 of the Public Health (Ir.) Act, 1878, imposed a duty on the defendants to cleanse the streets and to dispose of the refuse, an unauthorised trespass by their servants upon private property for the purpose of dumping the refuse was not an act done by the defendants in the execution or intended execution of this duty; and that the unlawful appropriation of the plaintiff's land as a refuse-dump was not the execution or intended execution of the duty imposed by sect. 55 of the Public Health (Ir.) Act, 1878, to "provide fit . . . places for the deposit of any matters collected by them in pursuance of this part of this Act";and the defendants were not within the protection of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893.

New Trial Motion.

This was a motion by the defendants for an order that the verdict and findings of the jury, and the judgment and order of Sullivan P. in favour of the plaintiff be set aside, and that, in lieu thereof, judgment be entered for the defendants; or, in the alternative, that a new trial be ordered.

The plaintiff, Mary Anne Brannigan, who resided at Donore Avenue, in the City of Dublin, brought an action against the defendants, the Corporation of Dublin, claiming £1,000 for trespass upon her lands by the servants of the Corporation. The acts of trespass complained of were that the defendants had broken down and destroyed the walls of a field belonging to the plaintiff, and had broken down a gate and piers, and that they had deposited large quantities of rubbish, broken stones, and noxious matter upon her lands. According to particulars furnished, the trespasses commenced in May, 1922, and continued down to the month of February, 1924. On December 19th, 1924, the writ was issued. The defendants denied the trespasses, and pleaded that they did what was complained of by the leave and licence of the plaintiff. They also relied on the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61). The action...