Dublin County Council v Elton Homes Ltd
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | High Court |
Judge | Mr. Justice Barrington |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1984 |
Neutral Citation | 1983 WJSC-HC 2517 |
Docket Number | 1982 No.103 MCA |
Date | 01 January 1984 |
AND
1983 WJSC-HC 2517
THE HIGH COURT
Subject Headings:
COMPANY: directors
PLANNING: permission
Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrington delivered the 19th day of May 1983
This case raises a difficult point on the interpretation of section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976.
The Applicants are the Planning Authority for the County of Dublin.
The first named Respondent is a limited liability company formerly engaged in the building trade. It was incorporated on the 14th day of May 1976, had its registered office at 51, Rathgar Avenue, Dublin 6 and went into voluntary liquidation on the 15th of September, 1980. The company went into voluntary liquidation to forestall a petition about to be presented by one of its creditors who was pressing for payment. The directors of the company, who are the second and third named respondents, believed that, on the winding up, there would be a surplus of assets over liabilities and they hoped to have a members voluntary winding up. I am satisfied however that the company is insolvent; the liquidation, in the events which have happened, is a creditors" voluntary winding up; and the liquidator, Mr. Thomas P. Kelly, chartered accountant, estimates that the dividend payable to the ordinary unsecured creditors in the winding up will not be more than 25 pence in the pound.
By order number P 2270/78 of 16th of June, 1978 the applicant Council decided to grant permission to the company to build houses at sites number 1 to 20 Esker Glebe, Lucan in the County of Dublin subject to certain conditions.
By order number P 3911/78 of the 22nd of September, 1978 the Council decided to grant permission to the Company to build a house at site number 21 Esker Glebe, Lucan in the County of Dublin, subject to certain conditions.
These houses have been built, but all the conditions relating to remedial works, public lighting etc. have not been complied with.
The parties are agreed as to the works which need to be done to complete the development in accordance with the conditions in the planning permission and which the Planning Authority estimates would cost £15,424.00 but a dispute arises as to whose liability it is to carry them out.
The Planning Authority is naturally concerned for the plight of the residents in the new houses who are living in an unfinished estate and deprived of the amenities which were conditions of the planning permission.
They have accordingly brought this motion against the company and the directors personally in a effort to secure compliance with the conditions of the planning permissions.
Section 27 sub-section 2 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976provides as follows:-
"Where any development authorised by a permission granted under Part IV of the Principal Act has been commenced but has not been, or is not being, carried out in conformity with the permission because of non-compliance with the requirements of a condition attached to the permission or for any other reason, the High Court may, on the application of a Planning Authority or any other person, whether or not that person has an interest in the land, by order require any person specified in the order to do or not to do, or to cease to do, as the case may be, any thing which the Court considers necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in conformity with the permission and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wicklow County Council v Fenton (No 2)
...1994 3 IR 580 SHANNON REGIONAL FISHERIES BOARD V CAVAN CO COUNCIL UNREP MURPHY 21.12.1994 1995/5/1621 DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V ELTON HOMES LTD 1984 ILRM 297 DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V O'RIORDAN 1985 IR 159 ELLIS V NOLAN UNREP MCWILLIAM 6.5.83 1984/4/1300 EEC REC 75/436/EURATAM S2 WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT......
-
Environmental Protection Agency v Neiphin Trading Ltd & Others
...(PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S27 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S160 DUBLIN CO COUNCIL v ELTON HOMES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS 1984 ILRM 297 1983/9/2517 DUBLIN CO COUNCIL v O'RIORDAN 1985 IR 159 1986 ILRM 104 1985/5/1156 DUN LAOGHAIRE CORP v PARKHILL DEVELOPMENTS LTD & ORS 1989 IR ......
-
Sligo Corporation v Cartron Bay Construction Ltd & Maguire
...1963 S148 DUBLIC CO COUNCIL V O'RIORDAN 1985 IR 159 LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S27 DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V ELTON HOMES LTD 1984 ILRM 297 COMPANIES ACT 1963 S297 IRISH SHELL LTD V BALLYLYNCH MOTORS LTD & MORRIS OIL CO LTD UNREP KEANE 5.3.1997 1997/9/3083 ROSS CO LTD V SWAN 19......
-
Powers v Greymountain Management Ltd [(in Liquidation)]
...a company is a separate legal person from its directors. 4 . However, in the High Court case of Dublin County Council v. Elton Homes Ltd [1984] ILRM 297 at p. 301, Barrington J. stated that: “ If the case were one of fraud…the court might be justified in lifting the veil of incorporation an......
-
Planning injunction: section 160
...also Drogheda Corporation v. Gantley, High Court, unreported, Gannon J., 28 July 1983. 28 Dublin County Council v. Elton Homes Ltd. [1984] I.L.R.M. 297 (H.C.); Dublin County Council v. O’Riordan [1985] I.R. 159 (H.C.); Dun Laoghaire Corporation v. Parkhill Developments Ltd. [1989] I.R. 447 ......