Comyn v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 June 1950
• Date: 29 June 1950
• Docket Number: (1947. No. 124 P.)
• Court: Supreme 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...