Dun Laoghaire Corporation v Parkhill Developments Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judgment Date: 13 January 1989
• Neutral Citation: 1989 WJSC-HC 155
• Docket Number: [1987 No. 57 MCA],No 54. M.C.A 9423/1984
• Date: 13 January 1989

DUN LAOGHAIRE CORPORATION v. PARKHILL DEVELOPMENTS LTD

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION .27 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING ANDDEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1976

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE CORPORATION OF DUNLAOGHAIRE

BETWEEN:

THE CORPORATION OF DUN LAOGHAIRE

Applicant

and

PARKHILL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED, OLIVER PARKINSON HILL ANDCHRISTOPHER KEARNS

Respondents

1989 WJSC-HC 155

No 54. M.C.A 9423/1984

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

PLANNING

Enforcement

Company - Development - Housing estate - Failure to complete - Company insolvent - Application by planning authority for order compelling company and its director to complete development - Order not made against director - On 19/10/78 the applicant planning authority granted the respondent company planning permission for the construction of a residential development at Upper Glenageary Road, Dun Laoghaire in the county of Dublin, subject to the conditions therein contained - The work on the development ceased in 1982 and the respondent company became insolvent - In 1987 the applicants issued a special summons in the High Court in which they sought an order under s. 27 of the Act of 1976 directing the respondent company and its director, the second respondent, to complete the said development in accordance with the terms and conditions of the applicants" planning permission - Sub-section 2 of the said section states (inter alia) that, where any development authorised by a planning permission has been commenced but has not been, or is not being, carried out in conformity with the permission, the High Court may, on the application of a planning authority or any other person, by order "require any person specified in the order to do or not do ...anything which the Court considers necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in conformity with the permission and specifies in the order" - At the hearing of the application the applicants established the failure to complete the said development and the facts that the second respondent was a director and shareholder of the respondent company, which was insolvent - Held, in granting the relief sought against the respondent company, that no impropriety by the second respondent had been established and that the court would not make an enforcement order against that respondent: ~Dublin County Council v. Elton Homes~ [1984] ILRM 297; ~Dublin County Council v. O'Riordan~ [1986] ILRM 104 and ~Ellis v. Nolan~ (McWilliam J. - 6/5/83) considered - Local Government (Planning & Development) Act, 1976, s. 27 - (1987/57 MCA - Hamilton P. - 13/1/89)

|Corporation of Dun Laoghaire v. Parkhill Developments|

COMPANY

Directors

Liabilities - Planning permission - Development incomplete - Permission granted to company - Company insolvent - Planning authority sought to enforce completion by company and by directors - Enforcement order not made against directors - ~See~ Planning, enforcement - (1987/57 MCA - Hamilton P. - 13/1/89)

|Corporation of Dun Laoghaire v. Parkhill Developments|

Citations:

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S27

COMPANIES ACT 1963 S131

COMPANIES ACT 1963 S148

DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V CRAMPTON BUILDERS LTD UNREP 10.03.80

DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V ELTON HOMES LTD 1984 ILRM 297

DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V O'RIORDAN 1986 ILRM 104

ELLIS V NOLAN UNREP MCWILLIAM 6.5.83 1984/4/1300

1 Judgment of the President of the High Court delivered on the13th day of January 1989

2 This is an application brought by the Applicant herein for an order pursuant to the provisions of Section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976to compel the Respondents herein to:-

3 (1) Forthwith complete a residential housing development known as "Highthorn Woods", Upper Glenageary Road, Dun Laoghaire in the County of Dublin to the reasonable satisfaction of theApplicant.

4 (2) Requiring the Respondents to forthwith comply with all the conditions attached to the planning permission granted by the Applicant in respect of the said development on the 19th day of October 1978.

5 (3) Requiring the Respondents to forthwith carry out the work set out in the Schedule to the Notice of Motion.

6 (4) Requiring the Respondents to furnish "as constructed" plans of the estate in question in accordance with the directions for that purpose set out in Paragraph 21 of the Schedule attached to the Notice of Motion as follows:-

"Showing lay-out of estate and locations of all services. Main drainage system should be shown in colour, including locations of manholes and gullies and connections to the main drains, levels and gradients as well as type and size of pipes; waters supply showing size and type of pipes and locations of all fittings should also be shown incolour."

7 The application was grounded on the affidavit of Martin Quirke, Civil Engineer, employed by the Applicant herein, sworn on the 11th day of June 1987 and filed on the 17th day of June 1987.

8 It appears from this affidavit that:-

9 (a) The first-named Respondent is a limited liability company which has its registered office at 4 Willow Bank, Monkstown in the County of Dublin, is the owner of the lands known as "Highthorn Woods", Glenageary in the County of Dublin on which housing development on foot of the planning permission granted by the Applicant on the 19th day of October 1978, subject to the conditions therein set forth, has been carried out by the first-named Respondent.

10 (b) The housing construction of the 10 houses in the said estate ceased in or about 1982 and that the estate has not been completed in accordance with the said planning permissions and in particular the works set out in detail in the Schedule to the Notice of Motion issued herein required to be carried out to bring theestate up to a reasonable standard so as to enable it to be taken in charge by the Applicant.

11 The second and third-named Respondents are Directors of the first-named Respondent company.

12 It is not contested by or on behalf of the Respondents herein that the Schedule of works required to be completed as set out in the Schedule attached to the Notice of Motion is not accurate nor is it contested that the said works require to be done to complete the development in accordance with the terms of the planning permission.

13 In his affidavits sworn on the 24th September 1987, the second-named Respondent, Oliver Parkinson Hill, averred, inter alia, that:-

14 (a) He was a shareholder and director of the first-named Respondentcompany.

15 (b) The development, the subject matter of the application herein, was carried out by the first-named Respondent, Parkhill DevelopmentsLimited.

16 (c) The said Respondent, Parkhill Development Limited, had become insolvent and had not traded for some period of time.

17 (d) That the said Respondent, Parkhill...