Corporation of Dublin v Maiden Poster Sites Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMR. JUSTICE MURPHY
Judgment Date01 January 1983
Neutral Citation1982 WJSC-HC 1980
Docket NumberNo. 38 M.C.A./1982
CourtHigh Court
Date01 January 1983

1982 WJSC-HC 1980

THE HIGH COURT

No. 38 M.C.A./1982
DUBLIN CORP. v. MAIDEN POSTER SITES
IN THE MATTER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963TO 1976AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 27 OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976

BETWEEN:

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OFDUBLIN
Applicants

and

MAIDEN POSTER SITES LIMITED
Respondents
1

JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE MURPHYDELIVERED the 8th day of July 1982

2

This is a claim for relief under section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976(the 1976 Act).

3

The Respondents are a company engaged in the business of erecting hoardings for the display of advertisements. For that purpose they acquire suitable sites or other facilities. Having regard to the nature of the business which they carry on, I would assume that the Respondents are conscious of the need to obtain planning permission for the erection of such structures or the use of such structuresfor advertising.

4

In June 1981 the Respondents acquired from Reg Armstrong Motors Limited the right to use the outer walls of 67 Pearse Street, Dublin for the purpose of displaying poster-type advertisements. Some time between June 1981 and the 27th August 1981 the Respondents erected four hoardings measuring 20 feet by 10 feet on those premises and proceeded to use them for the display of advertisements. It is common case that this development required planning permission and that no such permission was sought or obtained prior to the development.

5

The Respondents did subsequently apply to the Planning Authority for permission to retain the structure but that application was refused. On the 1st July 1982 the Respondents appealed that refusal to the Planning Board and that appeal is still pending.

6

Apart from the existence of the appeal, the only argument offered by the Respondents as to why an order restraining the continued unauthorised development should not be granted was that the works -albeit unauthorised - represent a considerable improvement to the appearance and amenities of premises which had become badly dilapidated. The factual basis for that argument is indeed supportedby the photograph put in evidence by the Respondents.

7

It is proper to say that an important issue was raised as to whether the Court has power under section 27(1) of the 1976 Act - that is to say where no planning permission has been granted - to direct...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • South Dublin County Council v Fallowvale Ltd and Another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 28 April 2005
    ...MORRIS 13.12.1991 (EX TEMPORE) DUBLIN CO COUNCIL v TALLAGHT BLOCK CO LTD 1982 ILRM 534 1982/4/766 DUBLIN CORP v MAIDEN POSTER SITES LTD 1983 ILRM 48 DUBLIN CORP v MCGOWAN 1993 1 IR 405 1993/2/303 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S162(1) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S157(4)(C) WESTPORT URB......
  • Cork County Council & Froggat and Others v Slattery Pre-Cast Concrete Ltd and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 19 September 2008
    ...Corporation v Herbert Mulligan (Unrep, Finlay P, 6/5/1980), Morris v Garvey [1982] ILRM 177, Dublin Corporation v Maiden Poster Sites [1983] ILRM 48 and Dublin Corporation v O'Dwyer Bros (Unrep, Kelly J, 2/5/1997) considered - Planning and Development Act 2000 (No 3), s160 - Enforcement of ......
  • Tesco Ireland Ltd v Stateline Transport Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 13 November 2023
    ...in commercial activity and is deriving a profit from its wrongdoing. See, for example, Dublin Corporation v. Maiden Poster Sites Ltd [1983] I.L.R.M. 48 and Cork County Council v. Slattery Pre-cast Concrete Ltd [2008] IEHC 291. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is to be presumed......
  • Dublin Corporation v O'Dwyer Brothers
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 2 May 1997
    ...& DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S4(1)(g) DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V MANTRA INVESTMENT LTD 1980 ILTR 201 DUBLIN CORPORATION V MAIDEN POSTER SITES 1983 ILRM 48 Synopsis: Planning Law Application to restrain respondent from carrying out unauthorised developments and making unauthorised use of licensed premis......
1 books & journal articles
  • Planning injunction: section 160
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 2-4, July 2004
    • 1 July 2004
    ...Court, unreported, Geoghegan J., 10 March 1999; O’Connor v. Frank Hetherington Ltd., High Court, unreported, Barr J., 28 May 1987. 47[1983] I.L.R.M. 48 Planning Injunction: Section 160 210 [4:2 example, does the Circuit Court retain discretion to adjourn proceedings pending the determinatio......

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