Comyn v Attorney General

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date29 June 1950
Date29 June 1950
Docket Number(1947. No. 124 P.)
CourtSupreme Court
S.C.
Comyn
and
Attorney General

Compulsory acquisition of property - Compensation - Compulsory acquisition by the State by Emergency Powers Order of mining rights formerly demised by Ministers of Government - Whether such acquisition constitutes an acquisition by a "Government Department" under Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, s. 1, sub-s. 1 -Assessment of compensation - Procedure -Whether compensation to be assessed by Referee under Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, or by a Judge of the High Court - The Constitution, Article 50 -Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) Act, 1922 (No. 1 of 1922), Sch. I, Article 73 - Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 (9 10 Geo. 5, c. 57), s. 1, sub-s. 1 - Emergency Powers Act, 1939 (No.28 of 1939), s. 2, sub-s. 2 (g) - Emergency Powers (No. 144) Order, 1942 (Stat. R. Or., 1942, No.31.)

In the year 1939, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance on behalf of the Government demised to the plaintiff by way of lease the exclusive mining right in certain lands for the term of 49 years subject to the covenant contained in the lease. In the year 1942, when the plaintiff was developing mining operations by open-cast workings, the Government desired to resume the demised right and, pursuant to the provisions of s. 2, sub-s. 2 (g) of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, by Emergency Powers (No. 144) Order, 1942, compulsorily acquired the said rights in almost the entire of the lands. The plaintiff thereupon instituted proceedings claiming 1, a declaration that he was entitled to compensation for loss and damage resulting from the compulsory acquisition of his rights, and 2, an inquiry for the purpose of assessing such compensation. It was conceded at the trial that the plaintiff was entitled to payment of compensation, but it was contended by the defendant that such compensation should be assessed under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, s. 1, sub-s. 1, and not by a Judge of the High Court. Held by Kingsmill Moore, J. (and affirmed, on appeal by the Supreme Court) that the acquisition of the plaintiff's rights had been made by the State as a juristic person capable of holding property, and not by a "Government Department," within the meaning of s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Act of 1919. He accordingly granted the declaration sought, and directed that an inquiry for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Byrne v Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1972
    ...and determine an action brought by a plaintiff who claims damages from the State in respect of that tort. Comyn v. The Attorney General [1950] I.R. 142 and Macauley v. Minister for Posts & Telegraphs [1966] I.R. 345 approved. 3. That the Attorney General was the proper person to be appointe......
  • BG Lithographic Company Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
    • Guyana
    • Supreme Court (British Guiana)
    • Invalid date
  • Health Service Executive (HSE) v Commissioners for Valuation
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • June 13, 2008
    ...ACT 2001 S15(2) VALUATION ACT 2001 S15(4) VALUATION ACT 2001 S16 VALUATION ACT 2001 S59 VALUATION ACT 2001 SCHED 14(4) COMYN v AG 1950 IR 142 ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) ACT 1919 CONSTITUTION ART 10 WEBB v IRELAND 1988 IR 353 BYRNE v IRELAND 1972 IR 241 COMMISSIONERS......
  • British Transport Commission v Gourley
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • December 8, 1955
    ...P.A.Y.E. scheme as in M'Daid's case was left open. 32Our attention was also called to the case of ( Comyn v. The Attorney-General 1950 Irish Reports page 142). This was a case in which the question arose as to the compensation for compulsory acquisition of property. It was therefore necess......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Foreword
    • Ireland
    • Hibernian Law Journal No. 20-2021, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...Shell plc [2021] UKSC 3 deals with the changing landscape of parent company liability and the necessity for such changes in light 5 [1950] 1 IR 142. 6 Hyper Trust Limited t/a he Leopardstown Inn and Ors v FBD Insurance plc [2021] IEHC 78. 7 Re New Look Retailers (Ireland) Ltd [2020] IEHC 51......
  • Reappraising Byrne v Ireland: on why Ireland is a Sovereign State
    • Ireland
    • Hibernian Law Journal No. 20-2021, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...he propositions are heavily informed by the work of Martin Loughlin, Professor of Public Law at the London School of Economics. 4 [1950] 1 IR 142. 118 darragh caldwell he Seven Propositions 1. he concepts of the state and sovereignty are inextricably linked and the idea of the ‘sovereign st......
  • Reappraising Byrne v Ireland: on why Ireland is a Sovereign State
    • Ireland
    • Hibernian Law Journal No. 20-2022, January 2022
    • January 12, 2022
    ...The propositions are heavily informed by the work of Martin Loughlin, Professor of Public Law at the London School of Economics. 4 [1950] 1 IR 142. 118 darragh The Seven Propositions 1. The concepts of the state and sovereignty are inextricably linked and the idea of the ‘sovereign state’ i......
  • Foreword
    • Ireland
    • Hibernian Law Journal No. 20-2022, January 2022
    • January 12, 2022
    ...plc [2021] UKSC 3 deals with the changing landscape of parent company liability and the necessity for such changes in light 5 6 7 8 [1950] 1 IR 142. Hyper Trust Limited t/a The Leopardstown Inn and Ors v FBD Insurance plc [2021] IEHC Re New Look Retailers (Ireland) Ltd [2020] IEHC 514. [202......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT