Pine Valley Developments v Minister for the Environment

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice McMohan
• Judgment Date: 28 June 1985
• Neutral Citation: 1985 WJSC-HC 2700
• Docket Number: NO. 1715P/1983
• Date: 28 June 1985

1985 WJSC-HC 2700

THE HIGH COURT

NO. 1715P/1983

PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. MIN ENVIRONMENT

BETWEEN/

PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

PLAINTIFFS

and

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEYGENERAL

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

ABENGLEN PROPERTIES LTD, STATE V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1984 IR 381, 1982 ILRM 590

ABOTT V SULLIVAN 1952 1 KB 189

CONSTITUTION ART 40

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3

DUNLOP V WOLLAHRA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 1981 1 AER 1202, 1982 AC 158, 1981 2 WLR 693

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S26(3)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S82(3)(a)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976

MOGUL STEAMSHIP CO LTD V MCGREGOR GOW & CO 23 QBD 598 1892 AC 25

O'NEILL V CLARE CO COUNCIL 1983 ILRM 141

PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD, STATE V DUBLIN CO COUNCIL 1982 ILRM 169

Synopsis:

ACTION

Cause

Existence - Ministerial order - Invalidity - Damage - Outline planning permission - Plaintiff purchaser of property specifed in permission - Assumed benefit of permission enhancing price paid by plaintiff - Permission declared invalid by court - Value of property diminished - Permission not containing representation of its validity - No injustice done affecting plaintiff's property rights - Plaintiff without cause of action - (1983 No.1715P - McMahon J. - 28/6/85).

|Pine Valley Developments v. Minister for The Environment|

CONSTITUTION

Personal rights

Property - Damage - Ministerial order - Outline planning permission - Plaintiff purchaser of property specified in permission - Assumed benefit of permission enhancing price paid by plaintiff - Permission declared invalid by court - Value of property diminished - Permission not containing representation of its validity - No injustice done affecting plaintiff's property rights - Plaintiff without cause of action - Article 40 - (1983 No. 1715P - McMahon J. - 28/6/85).

|Pine Valley Developments v. Minister for the Environment|

PLANNING

Permission

Invalidity - Damage - Plaintiff purchaser of property specified in permission - Value of property diminished - Plaintiff without cause of action - (1983 No.1715P - McMahon J. - 28/6/85).

|Pine Valley Developments v. Minister for the Environment|

MINISTER OF STATE

Order

Validity - Representation - Outline planning permission - Plaintiff purchaser of property specified in permission - Assumed benefit of permission enhancing purchase price paid by plaintiff - Permission declared invalid by court - Value of property diminished - Permission not containing representation of its validity - Ministerial order subject to review by courts - Plaintiff without cause of action - (1983 No.1715P - McMahon J. - 28/6/85).

|Pine Valley Developments v. Minister for the Environment|

ORDER

Invalidity

Damage - Remedy - Ministerial order - Outline planning permission - Permission declared invalid by court - Consequential substantial fall in value of property - Landowner without cause of action - (1983 No.1715P - McMahon J. - 28/6/85).

|Pine Valley Developments v. Minister for the Environment|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Injustice done"

Constitution - Personal rights - Property - Ministerial order - Invalidity - Damage - Outline planning permission - Plaintiff purchase of property specified in permission - Permission declared invalid by court - Value of property diminished - Plaintiff without cause of action - Article 40 - (1983 No.1715P - McMahon J. - 28/6/85).

|Pine Valley Developments v. Minister for the Environment|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Invalid"

Unlawful - Distinction - (1983 No.1715P - McMahon J. - 28/6.85).

|Pine Valley Developments v. Minister for the Environment|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Unlawful"

Invalid - Distinction - (1983 No.1715P - McMahon J. 28/6/85).

|Pine Valley Developments v. Minister for the Environment|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice McMohandelivered on the 28th day of June 1985

2 In the case of the State (Pine Valley Developments Limited) against Dublin County Council ( 1982 I.L.R.M. 169) the Supreme Court held that an Order of the Minister for Local Government made on the 10th March, 1977 purporting to grant outline planning permission for industrial warehouse and office development on lands near Newlands Cross, Clondalkin, County Dublin, which were zoned in the Development Plan for agricultural use and open space amenity was ultra vires and a nullity on the grounds that in hearing an appeal under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts 1963and 1976from a refusal of the planning authority the Minister had no power of his own motion in the absence of a request therefor from the planning authority to grant permission for a development which materially contravened the plan.

3 The plaintiffs in the present action purchased the lands with the benefit of the Order granting outline planning permission in order to develop the lands for commercial purposes. When they applied to the planning authority for permission in accordancewith plans and particulars which were lodged the application and subsequent applications were refused by the planning authority. The plaintiffs then brought proceedings in the High Court on the State Side and obtained an absolute Order of Mandamus directing the planning authority to grant planning approval and it was on appeal from that decision that the Supreme Court held that the Minister's Order was null and void.

4 In this action the Plaintiffs claim that the Minister for Local Government by granting what purported to be outline planning permission by an Order which was in fact null and void caused the plaintiffs to suffer financial loss because relying on the Minister's Order they paid the development value for the lands and were left with lands capable of agricultural use only. The Plaintiffs claim damages against the Minister for the Environment as the successor to the Minister for Local Government on the grounds, as pleaded, that in making the invalid Order the Minister for Local Government committed a breach of statutory duty and was guilty of acting unlawfully and of misfeasance in a public office or alternatively of negligence or negligent misrepresentation. Against the State the plaintiffs claim that the State failed in its laws to respect and as far as practicable by its laws to defend and vindicate the property rights of the plaintiffs and failed in the case of injustice done to the plaintiffs to vindicate the property rights of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs claim damages for breach of their constitutional rights under Article 40 (3).

5 It was agreed that at this hearing the Court should determine the issue of liability only.

6 Evidence was given by Mr. Michael Murphy the Legal Adviserto the Department of the Environment and previously to the...