Murphy v Corporation of Dublin

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date01 January 1976
Date01 January 1976
Docket Number[1969 No. 538 P.]
Murphy v. Corporation of Dublin
Joseph Murphy
Plaintiff
and
The Right Honourable The Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgresses of the County Borough of Dublin and The Minister for Local Government
Defendants
[1969 No. 538 P.]

Supreme Court

Local government - Housing - Compulsory acquisition of plaintiff's land - Land outside area of acquiring authority - Power of housing authority - Confirmation of compulsory purchase order - Housing Act, 1966 (No. 21), ss. 55, 76. 77. 109.

The plaintiff objected to a compulsory purchase order affecting his lands. The order was made by the defendant corporation as a housing authority and was confirmed by the second defendant pursuant to s. 76 of the Housing Act, 1966. The plaintiff's lands were not situated in the functional area of the defendant corporation. The person holding the public local inquiry prior to such confirmation had heard evidence of the respective plans of the plaintiff and of the defendant corporation relating to the development of the plaintiff's lands. That person ended his report to the second defendant by recommending that the latter should not confirm the compulsory purchase order because the defendant corporation had failed to prove that the acquisition of the plaintiff's lands was essential to, or the most expedient way of, securing the rapid erection of new houses on such lands. The plaintiff's action, in which he claimed a declaration that the compulsory purchase order was invalid, was dismissed in the High Court. On appeal by the plaintiff it was

Held by the Supreme Court (FitzGerald C.J., Walsh, Budd, Henchy and Griffin JJ.), in disallowing the appeal, 1, that s. 109 of the Housing Act, 1966, which authorises a housing authority to perform any of its functions under that Act outside its functional area, enables such authority to exercise its power of compulsory purchase in respect of lands in the area of a neighbouring authority although the acquiring authority has not made any agreement with the neighbouring authority as permitted by sub-s. 2 of section 109.

2. That the second defendant was entitled to confirm the compulsory purchase order even though the plans of the defendant corporation would not result in the rapid erection of new houses, because s. 77 of the Act allows a housing authority to acquire lands not immediately required for the purposes of the Act if the second defendant was of opinion that there was a reasonable expectation that the lands would be required in the future for certain specified objectives, and that there had been evidence to support an opinion of the second defendant pursuant to section 77.

Appeal from the High Court.

On the 25th February, 1969, the plaintiff issued a plenary summons claiming a declaration that the Poppintree-Balbutcher-Santry Area Compulsory Purchase Order, 1967, was invalid in so far as it affected the plaintiff's lands. The compulsory purchase order was made by the first defendants (a housing authority) and was confirmed by the second defendant. Prior to the confirmation by the second defendant, the plaintiff had issued similar proceedings in which he named the first defendants as sole defendants; the two proceedings were treated as a consolidated action. The plaintiff's interlocutory motion for discovery of documents is the subject of the report in Murphy v. Corporation of Dublin.1

This action was tried by O'Keeffe P. on the 13th and 14th December, 1972, and he dismissed the plaintiff's claim. In the course of his judgment the trial judge said:—"All these matters were contained in the report of the inspector and, in spite of what is said in the judgment2 of Mr. Justice Walsh in the Supreme Court, I do not think for one moment that he intended to indicate that the Minister should not receive in the report of an inspector holding an inquiry of this kind views of the inspector derived from the consideration of the evidence—views which the Minister might or might not accept. I rather think what was intended was that an inspector, in making a report to the Minister, should not include in his report matters extraneous to the public inquiry, information obtained from some other source or views of his own not the subject of any discussion at the inquiry; but here the inspector making the report was really expressing his views for the assistance of the Minister on the argument put up at the inquiry by both sides."

Section 76 of the Housing Act, 1966, provides:—"A housing authority acquiring land compulsorily for the purposes of this Act may be authorised to do so by means of a compulsory purchase order made by the authority

and submitted to and confirmed by the Minister in accordance with the provisions contained in the Third Schedule to this Act." Article 5(2) of the said third schedule states:—"The Minister shall not confirm a compulsory purchase order in so far as it relates to any land in respect of which an objection is duly made by any of the persons upon whom notices of the making of the order are required to be served until he has caused to be held a public local inquiry into such objection and until he has considered such objection and the report of the person who held the inquiry, unless . . ." Sub-article 3 of article 5 provides:—"An order made by the Minister shall not—(a) authorise the housing authority to acquire compulsorily any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Clifford & Peter Sweetman v an Bord Pleanala ; O'Connor v an Bord Pleanala
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 August 2022
    ...Realties Ltd. v. Ville de St. Michel [1924] AC 185 at 192, The People (A.G.) v. McGlynn [1967] I.R. 232, Murphy v. Dublin Corporation [1976] I.R. 143). 48 The context, language and purpose of the legislation all militate in favour of an interpretation that the new obligation to publish mate......
  • Pine Valley Developments v Minister for the Environment
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1987
    ...Borough Council) [1984] 1 W.L.R. 592; [1984] 1 All E.R. 956. Siney v. Dublin Corporation [1980] I.R. 400. Murphy v. Dublin Corporation [1976] I.R. 143. Lonhro Ltd. v. Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd. (No. 2) [1982] A.C. 173; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 33; [1981] 2 All E.R. 456. Johnston v. Meldon (1891) 30 L.......
  • Wymes v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 14 November 2003
    ...an adjournment of the inquiry conducted by the inspector. Counsel refers, by reference to the decision inMurphy v. Corporation of Dublin [1976] I.R. 143, to the requirement that the Minister for Local Government who formerly exercised the power exercised by the Board was bound to act judici......
  • McNamee v Buncrana Urban District Council
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1984
    ...v. Feely (Supreme Court: 23rd July, 1980). 2 Moran v. Corporation of Dublin (1974) 109 I.L.T.R.57. 3 Murphy v. Corporation of Dublin [1976] I.R. 143. Local government - Housing - Allocation of houses - Housing authority's scheme of priorities - Categories of qualified applicants - Residence......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT