Manning v Shackleton

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 01 April 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1994 WJSC-HC 1335
• Docket Number: 1992 - 237 J.R.,[1992 No. 237 J.R.]
• Date: 01 April 1993

1994 WJSC-HC 1335

THE HIGH COURT

1992 - 237 J.R.

MANNING v. SHACKLETON

BETWEEN

DAVID MANNING

APPLICANT

AND

JOHN R. SHACKLETON

RESPONDENT

AND

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF CORK

NOTICE PARTY

Citations:

DALY, STATE V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1987 IR 165

ANHEUSER BUSCH V THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGN & TRADE MARKS 1987 IR 329

CREEDON, STATE V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1988 IR 51

INTERNATIONAL FISHING VESSELS LTD V MIN FOR MARINE 1989 IR 149

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) ACT 1919 S3(3)

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) ACT 1919 S5(1)

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) ACT 1919 S6(1)

MEENAGHAN V DUBLIN CO COUNCIL 1984 ILRM 616

ARBITRATION ACT 1954 S36

Synopsis:

ARBITRATION

Award Form - Reasons - Absence - Compensation - Amount - Land - Compulsory acquisition - Unconditional offer - Sum awarded was affected by undertakings given by offeror - Remittal of proceedings to arbitrator to determine value of undertakings - Landowner's liability for costs dependent upon amount of sum awarded - Constituent parts of award not specified - Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, ss. 3, 5 - Arbitration Act, 1954, s. 36 - (1992/237 JR - Barron J. - 1/4/93)

|Manning v. Shackleton|

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION

Compensation

Assessment - Arbitration - Costs - Issue - Sum awarded as compensation being affected by undertakings given by acquiring authority - Proceedings remitted to arbitrator to make further findings - (1992/237 JR - Barron J. - 1/4/93) - [1994] 1 I.R. 397

|Manning v. Shackleton|

TRIBUNAL

Decision

Reasons - Disclosure - Failure - Arbitrator - Land - Compulsory acquisition - Award of compensation by property arbitrator - Claimant's failure to seek statement of reasons before award - (1992/237 JR - Barron J. - 1/4/93) [1994] 1 I.R. 397 1994 1 ILRM 346

|Manning v. Shackleton|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barron delivered the1st day of April 1993.

2 The Applicant is the owner of a residential farm of approximately 100 acres, situate at Barryscourt in the County of Cork. Portion of these lands became the subject of a Compulsory Purchase Order, made by Cork County Council in the year 1986. Following upon the usual procedures where the parties fail to agree on the measure of compensation to be paid, the Respondent was appointed property arbitrator. Following his appointment the County Council made an unconditional offer to the Applicant of £175,000 exclusive of costs, in full and final settlement of his claim for compensation. This offer also included an undertaking to carry out certain accommodation works. Although a breakdown of this figure was sought by the Applicant no such breakdown was ever provided to him. The matter came on for hearing before the Respondent over six days between the months of May and September 1992. In the course of the hearing further undertakings to carry out accommodation works were given by the County Council. In the course of the hearing it was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the Applicant should be awarded the costs of the hearing by virtue of the undertakings being given by the County Council. This submission was opposed by the County Council who submitted that the usual rule should apply, i.e., that the costs should depend upon whether or not the award exceeded the offer which had already been made. The Respondent accepted the submissions made on behalf of the County Council.

3 The Respondent gave his award on the 12th of December 1991, whereby he awarded the Applicant the sum of £156,280. He provided for the costs to be payable by the County Council in the event of that sum exceeding the unconditional offer, or to be paid from the date of the offer by the Applicant, in the event of the sum awarded not exceeding the amount of the offer.

4 On the 18th of February 1992 the Solicitors for the Applicant wrote to the Respondent as follows:-

"Re: David Manning v. Cork County Council Arbitration Award"

5 Dear Sir,

6 We refer to your award handed down on the 12th of December 1991. As you know many areas of conflict arose concerning the facts of the matter in the case and there was also legal argument advanced on behalf of the parties. In these circumstances therefore, we would kindly ask you to furnish considered judgment dealing with the following:-

7 (a) Your findings of facts;

8 (b) The legal arguments advanced and your findings in relation thereto;

9 (c) Furnish a breakdown of the content of the award, particularly in relation to the sum of £156,280.

10 We shall thank you to furnish this information as soon as possible since our client wishes to be advised in relation to the matters arising.

11 We look forward to hearing from you.

12 Yours faithfully,"

13 The Respondent replied by letter dated 21st February 1992 as follows:-

"Dear Sirs,

Cork County Council - David Manning

I thank you for your letter of 18th February. I am not required to give a written considered judgment in making my award. My award is made having considered all the evidence tendered, or adduced by the parties and the submissions made during the course of the hearing.

Yours faithfully,"

14 By an Order dated the 27th July 1992, the Applicant was given leave to seek Judicial Review of the award on the ground of the failure by the Respondent to furnish the reasons for his award and a breakdown of the award. The Respondent has entered a Statement of Opposition in which he pleads that he was not obliged to provide a detailed or any breakdown of the reasons for his award.

15 These proceedings are in essence a test case as to the right of an Applicant, in circumstances like that of the present Applicant to be informed of the reasons for the award given by the property arbitrator. A number of issues arose in the course of the hearing. The Applicant has submitted that without the reasons he is unable to formulate an appeal against the award. In the course of his Affidavit grounding the application he suggested two further reasons. One that he needed to know the breakdown of the award for the purposes of capital gains tax provisions, and secondly, that the award was less than could be justified by the evidence given on behalf of the County Council. In the course of the hearing before me neither of these matters was explored in argument.

16 The Applicant's claim is contested upon the basis that there is no obligation upon an arbitrator, set up under the 1919 Act to give reasons for his award. It is also submitted that that Act creates a code which is complete in itself.

17 The essence of the Plaintiff's case is that it is obligatory upon the exercise of a judicial power, or of an administrative power which must be exercised judicially that reasons are given for the exercise of that power. In the State (Daly) v. The Minister for Agriculture 1987 I.R. 1965, a case decided by me, the Prosecutor had been appointed as a veterinary inspector with the Department of Agriculture for a probationary period of two years. At the expiry of that period he was informed that his position was not being continued. No reasons were given to the prosecutor for this refusal, nor had he been led to believe during the course of his probationary period, that there was any dissatisfaction with his service. His dismissal was quashed upon the basis that, in the absence of reasons for his dismissal it had to be assumed, there were no valid reasons. The basis of my decision is set out at page 172 as follows:-

"The court must ensure that the material upon which the Minister acted is capable of supporting his decision. Since the Minister has failed to disclose the material upon which he acted, or the reasons for his action, there is no matter from which the court can determine whether or not such material was capable of supporting his decision. Since the Minister continues to refuse to supply this material, it must be presumed that there was no such material.

In the result therefore, the Minister was entitled to dispense with the services of the...