MacPharthalain v Commissioners of Public Works

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1994
• Date: 01 January 1994
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 55 of
• Court: Supreme Court

MacPharthalain v. Commissioners of Public Works

Sean MacPharthalain, Angela O'Malley and The Clifden and West Connemara Airport plc.

Applicants

and

The Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

[S.C. No. 55 of 1992]

Supreme Court

Judicial review - Certiorari - Decision - Natural and constitutional justice - Decision affecting applicants' lands - Failure to notify applicants of decision - Failure to provide opportunity to object - Designation of lands as area of scientific interest - Delineation of area on map - Whether decision - Whether amenable to judicial review.

The first applicant was the owner of lands which he had agreed to sell to the third applicant for the construction of a landing strip for aircraft. The agreement was subject to the third applicant obtaining planning permission for the proposed development. The second applicant was the owner of adjoining lands through which she had agreed to give the third applicant a right of way.

In 1982, following a survey by An Foras Forbatha, the first respondent designated an area of bogland adjacent to the first and second applicants' land as an area of scientific interest. In 1986, after considering reports furnished by experts in botany, geology and ornithology, the first respondent revised the boundaries of this area such that the first and second applicants' lands fell within it, and recorded the revision in graphic form on a map of the area. This was done without notice to the first and second applicants. As a result of the designation, the first and second applicants became disentitled to certain forestry grants, and the third applicant's application for planning permission was refused.

The applicants applied for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first respondent so to designate the lands. The issues before the High Court were, first, whether the designation of the area constituted a decision or a mere conveying of information to interested parties, and secondly, whether the designation itself, rather than the fact that the lands were in an area of scientific importance, affected the rights of the first and second applicants.

The High Court (Blayney J.) granted the relief sought, holding that the designation constituted a decision of the first respondent which, as a matter of fact, disentitled the first and second applicants to the forestry grants such that their lands were reduced in value and their personal rights affected, and that the failure of the first respondent to give the first and second applicants notice of the designation or any opportunity to object thereto was a failure of natural and constitutional justice [see [1992] 1 I.R. 111].

The respondents appealed to the Supreme Court arguing, inter alia, that the designation, by virtue of the manner in which it was done, did not constitute a decision of the first respondent.

Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., O'Flaherty and Denham JJ.), in dismissing the appeal, that the trial judge's conclusion that the designation constituted a decision of a judicial nature affecting the applicants' rights and therefore reviewable by the courts was correct.

Per Finlay C.J.: That where an officer of a government department, carrying out a function in pursuance of a government decision, received expert advice, adjudicated thereon, and decided to implement it by recording it graphically on a map, that implementation constituted a decision which was capable of being reviewed by the courts.

Per O'Flaherty J.: That landowners should be informed of decisions which might affect them, so as to afford them as opportunity to dispute such decisions.

Cases mentioned in this report:—

MacPharthalain v. Commissioners of Public Works[1992] 1 I.R. 111.

Appeal from the High Court.

The facts are summarised...