Crosbie v Custom House Dock Development Authority

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Costello.
Judgment Date27 February 1996
Neutral Citation1996 WJSC-HC 569
Docket Number[No. 3120 P of 1995],Record No. 3120P/1995
CourtHigh Court
Date27 February 1996

1996 WJSC-HC 569

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 3120P/1995
CROSBIE v. CUSTOM HOUSE DOCK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BETWEEN

HENRY A. CROSBIE
PLAINTIFF

AND

CUSTOM HOUSE DOCK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

AND

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

AND

IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEFENDANTS

Citations:

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 S5

URBAN RENEWAL ACT 1986 S8

URBAN RENEWAL ACT 1986 S9

PLANNING SCHEME S5.7

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 S2

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 (EXTENSION OF CUSTOM HOUSE DOCKS AREA) ORDER 1987 SI 206/1987

HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS (YEARLY RECKONABLE INCOME) (VARIATIONS) REGS SI 105/1987

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 S9(6)

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 S12(1)(a)

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 S12(4)

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 S12(5)

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 S5

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 S5(1)

HOUSING ACT 1966 S76

HOUSING ACT 1966 S79

HOUSING ACT 1966 S80

HOUSING ACT 1966 S81

HOUSING ACT 1966 S82

LAND CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT 1845

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) ACT 1919

URBAN RENEWAL ACT 1986 S5

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3

CONSTITUTION ART 43

PROCTOR & GAMBLE LTD V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 63 P & CR 317

URBAN RENEWAL ACT 1986 S12

URBAN RENEWAL (AMDT) ACT 1987 S5(7)

HOUSING ACT 1966 PART V

Synopsis:

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION

Lands

Corporation - Powers - Exercise - Purpose - Compulsory purchase order made by docks authority - Plaintiff's land required for redevelopment of docks area - Intention of authority to arrange for provision of sports centre on land acquired - Proposal for sports centre abandoned after plaintiff's land vested in authority - Refusal of defendant authority to resell land to plaintiff - Validity of statute authorising compulsory purchase order -(1995/3120 P - Costello P. - 27/2/96)

|Crosbie v. Custom House Docks Development Authority|

CONSTITUTION

Statute

Validity - Challenge - Land - Acquisition - Compulsion - Statutory authority - Power to redevelop docks area - Compulsory acquisition of plaintiff's land for purposes of such redevelopment - Intention to use site for National Sports Centre - Intention abandoned - Authority's power to sell land for such purposes - Refusal of authority to resell land to plaintiff - Validity of enactment affirmed - Urban Renewal Act, 1986 (No. 19), s. 9 - Urban Renewal (Amendment) Act, 1987 (No. 16), ss. 2, 5 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Articles 40, 43 - (1995/3120 P - Costello P. - 27/2/96)

|Crosbie v. Custom House Docks Development Authority|

1

Judgment of Mr. Justice Costello. Delivered the 27th day of February, 1996.

INTRODUCTION.
2

The plaintiff (or a company owned by him) was the owner of land east of Butt Bridge and the Financial Services Centre beside the River Liffey in the City of Dublin. The Customs House Docks Authority (a statutory corporation) made a compulsory purchase order pursuant to section 5 of the Urban Renewal Act, 1987in respect of the land. The order was confirmed by the Minister for the Environment on the 22 July 1990. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the order, but later withdrew the proceedings and sold his lands to the Authority for £3.85m. In 1995 he instituted this action claiming that section 5 of the 1987 Act is unconstitutional, submitting (a) that the purpose for which the CPO had been made was to build a National Sports Centre on a site which included the plaintiffs lands (b) that that purpose has been abandoned and (c) that the absence in the section of a right to re-acquire land which has been compulsorily purchased for a purpose which was subsequently abandoned amounts to an unjust attack on his constitutionally protected property rights, and seeking (d) an order that the land be reconveyed to him on payment of the purchase price.

3

The defendants (the Authority and relevant state authorities) deny any constitutional infirmity and raise three further issues;

4

(a) Locus standi. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the section because the lands were not in fact compulsorily acquired from him but were sold by him to the Authority at an agreed price.

5

(b) Estoppel. The plaintiff in 1990 had instituted proceedings challenging the validity of the CPO. By the contract of sale by which he sold the land to the Authority he undertook to discontinue those proceedings and not to revive them. The plaintiff, it is claimed, is estopped by this undertaking from instituting these proceedings.

6

(c) Laches and acquiesence. The CPO was confirmed on the 22 July 1990. This action was instituted five years later. The delay in instituting the proceedings and the plaintiffs acquiesence in the validity of the CPO constitute, it is claimed, a bar to these proceedings.

7

The facts are, by and large, not in dispute and I propose to outline those relevant to the issues I have identified. I will then consider the relevant statutory provisions and then turn to the parties" submissions and my conclusions on them.

THE FACTS.
8

(1) The Customs House Docks Development Authority is a body corporate established by section 8 of the Urban Renewal Act, 1986. It owned land described in the Act as "the Custom House Docks Area" and a general duty to secure the redevelopment of the Area was imposed on it by section 9. In 1987 it published a Planning Scheme (as required by section 12) which was approved by the Minister on the 22 June 1987 and the Area was subsequently developed in accordance with this Scheme and is now known as the Financial Services Centre.

9

(2) The 1986 Act was amended by the Urban Renewal Act, 1987. This gave power to the Minister for the Environment to extend the Customs House Docks Area to include land contiguous to its boundaries and lying east of the Area between the centre line of Sheriff Street Upper and Sheriff Street Lower and the centre of the River Liffey. It also provided that every reference to the "Custom House Docks Area" in the 1986 Act should be construed as a reference to any land over which the Area was extended by ministerial order. The Authority did not own the adjoining land and the 1987 Act empowered it to acquire compulsorily land in the extended Area (section 5). By order of the 23 May 1988 the Area was extended to include a site of over 11 acres, including land owned by the plaintiff. (Whether the land was owned by the plaintiff or a company controlled by him is a point which has not been raised and I will continue to refer to the land as the plaintiff's).

10

(3) The Planning Scheme to which I have referred contained a section (section 5.7) which referred to the fact that the Minister had announced that the Government had decided to extend the Customs House Docks area initially in a southerly direction to the middle of the river Liffey and that once the development of the existing area was under way then the Government's intention was "to extend, on a phased basis, the remit of the Authority to the lands generally between the centre of the river Liffey and Sheriff Street". The Scheme pointed out that proposals for the development of the existing area should take into account these future extensions of the area and allow for the integration of the development on the existing site with the future development on adjoining sites. It is clear, therefore, that from 1987 a decision had been taken that the Authority's statutory functions in relation to urban renewal would be extended to an area which would include the site in which the plaintiff's lands are situated. It is also clear that no decision at that time had been taken as to the form the redevelopment would take.

11

(4) In November 1987 the Government announced the National Lottery allocations which would be made to the various Government Departments and this announcement included a provision of an initial allocation of £2.5 million pounds towards the cost of site purchase and preliminary planning for a National Sports Centre. On the 4 March 1988 it decided that the National Sports Centre should be built on the Customs House Docks site and that land adjoining the existing Area would be acquired for this purpose. It also decided that a maximum capital budged of £35 million pounds would be paid to the successful consortia for the development of the Sports Centre but, significantly, it was decided that this approval was subject to the submission of detailed proposals to the Government before proceeding to the detailed planning stage. In April 1988 the Customs House Docks Authority was appointed development agent for the Minister for Education in relation to the National Sports Centre, the Authority having full responsibility for the project subject to supervision of a Steering Committee.

12

(5) As I have said, the Minister for the Environment on the 23 May 1988 extended the Customs House Docks area to include land owned by the plaintiff. On the 8 November 1988 the Authority wrote to the plaintiff referring to this fact, stating that "the purpose of this extension is to give effect to the Government's decision to locate the new Indoor National Sports Centre in the extended area" and expressing the wish to enter into negotiations for the acquisition of the plaintiff's lands. Negotiation with the plaintiff (amongst others) proved fruitless and on the 5 July 1989 the authority made a Compulsory Purchase Order in respect of, inter alia, the plaintiff's lands. The order stated;

"Subject to the provisions of this order, the authority is hereby authorised to acquire compulsorily for the purposes of the Urban Renewal Acts, 1986 and 1987and, in particular, for the purposes of section 9 of the Urban Renewal Act, 1986 the land described in the schedule hereto ...".

13

It is of significance to note that the purposes for which the land was to be acquired was "for the purposes of section 9" of the Acts - the order did not specifically limit the purpose of the acquisition to the proposed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Thomas Reid v Industrial Development Agency (Ireland) and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 19 June 2013
    ...1710 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S213 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT 1986 S25 CROSBIE v CUSTOM HOUSE DOCK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS 1996 2 IR 531 1996/2/569 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT 1986 S16(1)(i) O'KEEFFE v BORD PLEANALA & O'BRIEN 1993 1 IR 39 1992 ILRM 237 MCCORMACK v GARDA SIOCHANA ......
  • Reid v Industrial Development Agency
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 5 November 2015
    ...on other grounds, this passage remained untouched by the Supreme Court. Much the same was said by Costello P. in Crosbie v. Custom House Dock Development Authority [1996] 2 I.R.531, both of which observations were endorsed specifically by Geoghegan J. in Clinton (No.2). 44 Whilst the existe......
  • Paul Clinton v an Bord Pleanála, Dublin City Council (and by order) Attorney General (No. 2)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 2 May 2007
    ...MOVIE NEWS LTD v GALWAY CO COUNCIL UNREP KENNY 30.3.1973 LOCAL GOVT (IRL) ACT 1898 S10 CROSBIE v CUSTOM HOUSE DOCK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1996 2 IR 531 1996/2/569 PROCTOR & GAMBLE LTD v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 63 P & CR 31 EAST DONEGAL CO-OPERATIVE LIVESTOCK MART LTD & ORS v ......
  • Ballyedmond v Commission for Energy Regulation and Ward
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 22 June 2006
    ...Convention on Human Rights - Gas Act 1976 (No 30) - James v UK (1986) 8 EHRR 123, Crosbie v Custom House Dock Development Authority [1996] 2 IR 531 and Ashford Castle Ltd v SIPTU [2006] IEHC 201 (Unrep, Clarke J, 21/6/2006) considered - Application dismissed (2006/52JR - Clarke J - 22/6/20......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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