Meenaghan v Dublin County Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Hanlon J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1984
• Neutral Citation: 1984 WJSC-HC 614
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 396 SS/83
• Date: 01 January 1984

MEENAGHAN v. DUBLIN CO COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER OF:

The Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919

The Property Values (Arbitrations and Appeals) Act, 1960

The Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 and 1976

The Housing Act, 1966

The Dublin County Council Compulsory Purchase (Dodder Valley/Knocklyon/

Ballyroan) Order, 1973, and

The Council Confirmation Order dated 14th February, 1978

And In the Matter of Arbitration Proceedings between

John Meenaghan

and

Dublin County Council

1984 WJSC-HC 614

396 SS/83

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

ARBITRATION

Award

Remission-Principles applicable-Special case - Case stated by arbitrator for decision of High Court - Compulsory acquisition - Acquiring authority seeking new findings of fact by arbitrator to support legal submission-Court refusing to remit award-(1983 No. 396 SS-O'Hanlon 1. - 14/9/83).

Meenaghan v. Dublin Co Council.

1 Judgment delivered by O'Hanlon J., the 14th September, 1983 .

2 Arbitration proceedings took place before John R. Shackleton, ARICS, on the 3rd November, 1982, in relation to a claim for compensation made by John Meenaghan of St. Brendan's, Firhouse Road, Templeogue, Co. Dublin, in respect of the acquisition of part of his lands by Dublin County Council on foot of a Compulsory Purchase Order. That Order was the Dublin County Council Compulsory Purchase (Dodder Valley/Knocklyon/ Ballyroan) Order 1973, which did not become operative until the 30th July, 1979. The principal purpose for which the Order was made was to enable the County Council to acquire land for a linear park along the Dodder, with smaller areas being acquired for road widening along the Firhouse Road, and for the construction of the Western Parkway Road.

3 John Meenaghan, the applicant for compensation, was one of the persons whose lands were affected by the making of the Compulsory Purchase Order, but Notice to Treat pursuant to Sec. 79 of the Housing Act, 1966, was not served on him until the 28th July, 1982. I may remark, in passing, that it seems to me to be very unfair to a landowner to allow such an inordinate delay take place between the first making of a Compulsory Purchase Order, and the completion of the transaction so far as he is concerned.

4 Mr. Shackleton having been appointed arbitrator for the purpose of determining the compensation which should be paid by the County Council for acquiring the applicant's lands, has stated his award in the form of a special case for the decision of the Court, on the basis that the applicant is entitled to receive, in any event, a sum of £400,000 for the acquisition of his lands, and should the Court answer the questions of law posed by the Case Stated in a particular manner, then an additional sum of £677,000 will become payable to the applicant.

5 As the award refers to the said John Meenaghan as "the Claimant" and to the Dublin County Council as "the Acquiring Authority", the same terminology will be used in the remainder of this judgment. The arbitrator has made an interim award in favour of the Claimant for the sum of £400,000 already referred to. In relation to a complaint made during the course of the proceedings about the failure of the Acquiring Authority to pay this sum or any part thereof since the making of the award, (which is dated the 29th April, 1983), I merely comment that that interim award is, in my opinion, enforceable by taking the steps provided for in Sec. 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1954, without having to await the final determination of the Case Stated in relation to the remainder of the award.

6 The very large discrepancy between the two sums which may be recoverable by the Claimant against the Acquiring Authority arises in the following manner. The arbitrator had to consider the value of the lands in the light of the fact that they were affected by the County Dublin Development Plan and were therein designated with the letter "Q", indicating that the entire area was to be preserved as an area of high amenity. This restricted very considerably the development potential of the lands, notwithstanding the fact that extensive residential development had taken place on adjoining lands.

7 The arbitrator then went on to consider what would be the value of the lands if they were not affected by the restriction on development imposed by the zoning provisions already referred to, and by this process he arrived at the higher of the two figures. In doing so, however, he made two assumptions, the validity of which he seeks to have confirmed by this Court if the higher award is to take effect. One was the assumption that the Acquiring Authority, as Sanitary Authority, would have been under an obligation to allow effluent from the foul water sewers of a scheme of development on the Subject Land to be discharged into the Dodder Valley Main Sewer. The other was that a plea by the Acquiring Authority that the capacity of the Dodder Valley Main Sewer was pre-empted to provide capacity for a scheme of development on other lands (some of which would possibly or probably be undertaken by a Local Authority), would not entitle the Acquiring, Authority to refuse planning permission for development of the Subject Land under the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, while at the same time barring any claim to compensation by the Claimant by reason of the exclusion found in Sec. 56 (1) (b) (i) of the Act of 1963.

8 Paragraph 19 of the award of the arbitrator contains the four questions submitted by him for the opinion of the High Court. It reads as follows:-

"19. The Acquiring Authority submitted that a decision, as Planning Authority, to refuse planning permission for development on the Subject Land for the reason that the capacity of the Dodder Valley Main Sewer was pre-empted would not confer a right to compensation. The questions for the opinion of the High Court are:"

9 (1) Is the designation "Q" in the County Dublin Development Plan 1972 equivalent to a reservation for a particular purpose?

10 (2) Is the designation "T" in the County Dublin Development Plan equivalent to a reservation for a particular purpose?

11 (3) Could the Acquiring Authority, as the Sanitary Authority, have refused to allow effluent from the foul water sewers of a scheme...