Lennon and Harvey v Louth County Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice McWilliam
• Judgment Date: 08 May 1984
• Neutral Citation: 1984 WJSC-HC 2374
• Court: High Court
• Date: 08 May 1984

1984 WJSC-HC 2374

THE HIGH COURT

LENNON and HARVEY v LOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL

Circuit Appeal Dundalk

LENNON & HARVEY LIMITED

-v-

LOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL

Subject Headings:

MALICIOUS INJURY: damage

.Mr. Justice McWilliam

Mr. Justice McWilliam

1 This appeal has been brought by Louth County Council against an award of £61,000.40 made by the Circuit Court Judge in respect of the destruction of a cargo of potatoes at The Harbour, Dundalk on 10th May, 1983. In making his award the Circuit Court Judge took into account sums expended on the removal and disposal of the damaged potatoes. These included expenditure on the hire of lorries, the use of the Applicant's own lorries, management charges for the disposal operation, charges for shipping, stevedoring services and demurrage.

2 Although the appeal by the County Council was expressed in the notice of appeal to be against the whole of the judgment of the Circuit Court, malice was not contested in either Court. The only submission made on the hearing of the appeal was that sums amounting to £12,000 approximately in respect of the matters mentioned above were items of consequential damage and, therefore, could not be taken into account in making an award of compensation under the provisions of the Malicious Injuries Act,1981.

3 Subsection (l) of section 5 of that Act provides as follows:-

"Where damage, the aggregate amount of which exceeds one hundred pounds, is maliciously caused to property, the person who suffers the damage shall be entitled to obtain compensation from the local authority in accordance with this Act."

4 Section 2 of the Act provides for the interpretation of the word "damage" as follows:- "“damage”, in relation to property, includes the total or partial destruction of the property and any injury thereto;"

5 Subsection (4) of section 5 of the Act provides as follows;-

"The right to compensation given by this section shall be limited to compensation for the actual damage caused and shall not extend to compensation for any loss consequential on such actual damage and, in particular, shall not extend to compensation for the loss of the use of the property damaged."

6 I was referred to a number of cases. Although none of the decisions appear to me to be directly relevant to the facts of the present case, some observations made in the course of the judgments do refer to the nature of consequential damage.

7 In the case ofNoblett -v-...