Dublin Corporation v McGrath

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice McMahon
• Judgment Date: 17 November 1978
• Neutral Citation: 1978 WJSC-HC 228
• Docket Number: No. 340 S.S/1978
• Court: High Court
• Date: 17 November 1978

1978 WJSC-HC 228

THE HIGH COURT

No. 340 S.S/1978

DUBLIN CORPORATION v. McGRATH

BETWEEN:

DUBLIN CORPORATION THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYORALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF DUBLIN

Complainants

and

ELIZABETH McGRATH

Defendant

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice McMahondelivered the 17th day of November 1978

2 This is a Case Stated by the District Justice for the District court area of Kilmainham pursuant to section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 and 51 of the courts (Supplemental Provision) Act 1961.

3 The complainants are the Planning Authority for the County Borough of Dublin. They brought these proceedings by summons in the District Court in which it is alleged that the defendant had failed to comply with an enforcement notice under section 31 Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963requiring her to remove a certain structure from the rear garden of the premises 72 Ballygall Road west, Dublin. The structure in question is an erection in concrete blocks approximately 64 feet long by 31 feet wide and 19 feet high and isintended to be used as a commercial motor garage.

4 This building was erected by the defendant without having obtained planning permission under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963. The District Justice accepted the evidence of the defendant's husband Patrick McGrath that he commenced this development in May 1975 and during the progress of the work he received a number of visits from an Inspector from the complainants' Planning Department and the Inspector assured Mr. McGrath that he could proceed with the erection of the building and that the Inspector would look after the matter of planning permission for him and that he, Mr. McGrath, believed that there would be no objection by the Planning Authority if he completed the building which he did. The Inspector involved was suspended from duty shortly afterwards and subsequently dismissed.

5 The District Justice decided that by reason of these misleading representations the complainants were estopped from denying that the building erected by Mr. McGrath was exempted development. He dismissed the summons and on the application of the solicitor for the complainants stated this case raising for the determination of the High Court the question of law which is stated as follows:-

6 "Was I correct in law in holding that the complainants qua Planning Authority were estopped from denying the representationsmade"by their former employee"?

7 On the question of estoppel of a Planning Authority by representations by its officials the Court was referred to the following English authorities Southend-on-Sea Corporation .v. Hodgson Limited(1961) 2 A.E.R. 41; Wells .v. Minister of Housing (1967) 2 A.E.R. 1041; Lever (Finance) Limited .v. WestminsterCorporation (1970) 3 A.E.R. 496.

8 Under English Planning Law an officer of a Planning Authority may have delegated to him the function of determining whether a particular work is a development and if so whether it requires an application for planning permission having regard to the development plan. (See Town and Country Planning Act 1971 Section 4(1) replacing similar provisions in the Act of 1968).

9 In Southend Corporation .v. Hodgson Ltd. (1961) 2...