Re Estate of Roscrea Meat Products Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judgment Date: 31 July 1958
• Date: 31 July 1958

Appeal Tribunal.

Supreme Court.

In re Estate of Roscrea Meat Products Ltd.

In the Matter of the ESTATE OF ROSCREA MEAT PRODUCTS LTD., County of Meath, Record No. S. 9969

Land Acts - Compulsory acquisition of land - Provisional list - Objection by owner of land - Lay Commissioners - Whether s. 32, sub-s. 3, of the Land Act, 1933, requires objector to satisfy Lay Commissioners both as to adequacy of production of agricultural products and as to adequacy of employment - Whether Lay Commissioners entitled to disallow objection on a finding against owner in respect of one of these matters - Lay Commissioners receiving and considering report on the lands the subject-matter of the objection from official of Land Commission - Contents of report not disclosed to objector - Land Act, 1933 (No. 41 of 1933), s. 32, sub-s. 3 -Land Purchase Acts Rules, 1936 (Stat. R. & Or., 1936, No. 361), Or. 5, r. 1.

Appeal from Appeal Tribunal.

The appellants were the owners of untenanted lands comprised in Record No. S. 9969, situate near Trim, in the County of Meath. The lands were purchased and used by the appellants mainly for grazing and producing first quality beef cattle for export, chiefly to continental markets.

Proceedings for the acquisition of 545 acres of the said land were instituted by the Land Commission in accordance with the provisions of s. 25 of the Land Act, 1936, by publication in "Iris Oifigiuil" of a certificate of the Lay Commissioners, dated the 23rd January, 1950, certifying that the said lands were required for the purpose of re-sale to the persons or bodies mentioned in s. 31 of the Land Act, 1923, as amended by s. 33 of the Land Act, 1933 (Clauses (a) to (f)); they also published, pursuant to s. 40, sub-s. 2, of the Land Act, 1923, a provisional list of the said lands, dated the 7th February, 1950, which were to become vested in the Land Commission on the appointed day, if not excluded in consequence of a valid objection. On the 4th April, 1950, an objection to the provisional list was lodged in the Land Commission on behalf of the appellants and was heard by Mr. Commissioner Waddell and Mr. Commissioner Herlihy on the 27th July, 1950, when judgment was reserved. Judgment was not delivered before the death of Mr. Commissioner Herlihy and the objection came for hearing anew on the 28th February, 1952, before Mr. Commissioner O'Shiel and Mr. Commissioner Browne, and in a reserved judgment, delivered on the 12th June, 1952, they disallowed the objection on the ground that they were not satisfied that the lands were providing an adequate amount of employment, having regard to the factors prescribed in s. 32, sub-s. 2, of the Land Act, 1933. The appellants appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, by notice of appeal dated the 10th July, 1952, and a further notice of appeal dated the 8th May, 1953, from the judgment and order of the Lay Commissioners. The appeal was heard by the Appeal Tribunal (Maguire J.) on the 19th June, 1953.

In hearing an objection to which s. 32, sub-s. 3, of the Land Act, 1933, is applicable, the Lay Commissioners must be satisfied that the land is both producing an adequate amount of agricultural products and is providing an adequate amount of employment and an unfavourable finding on either of these matters suffices to warrant the disallowance of the objection.

So held by the Supreme Court (Maguire C.J., Lavery and O'Daly JJ., Kingsmill Moore J., dissenting).

Held further (Maguire C.J., Lavery, Kingsmill Moore and O'Daly JJ.), that it is not open to the Lay Commissioners to determine any question raised in an objection on information contained in a report from an official of the Land Commission which is not disclosed to the objector and which he has not an opportunity of confuting.

Maguire J.:—

This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Lay Commissioners dated the 12th June, 1952, disallowing an objection by the Roscrea Meat Products Limited, dated the 4th April, 1950, to the provisional list dated the 7th February, 1950.

The matter comes before me by way of appeal on questions of law raised in the notice of appeal dated the 10th July, 1952, and a further notice of appeal dated the 8th May, 1953. The appeal is not by way of re-hearing but is grounded upon the report of the Lay Commissioners which is stated not to be a verbatim report of the proceedings, but an accurate summary of the proceedings. The case concerns the acquisition by the Irish Land Commission of certain lands containing about 545 acres near Trim in the County of Meath.

The judgment appealed against is as follows:—

"The case made on behalf of the objector Company was, that these lands were purchased some years ago mainly with the object of producing on them first quality beef cattle for export, chiefly to continental markets. It was claimed, and strongly urged, that the lands being for the most part exceptionally good grazing land, with a particularly high stock carrying and fattening capacity, are best suited to the purpose to which they are devoted, namely, the finishing of cattle, and in that way achieve a level of production that could not be equalled by any alternative user. Evidence was given as to the output of fat stock, the employment afforded and wages paid, and the area of land contemplated for tillage. Finally it was pleaded that in view of the provisions of s. 32, sub-s. 3, of the Land Act, 1933, and in the absence of local congestion, the Land Commission was precluded from a acquiring these lands, compulsorily, for their statutory purposes.

In considering this objection we have had regard to all the factors above-mentioned. We do not accept the contention that this area of fine land is suitable only for grazing, or that grazing is the only or the best way in which it can be suitably or profitably utilised.

We are satisfied, and find as a fact, that the employment given on this area of 545 acres, carrying a Poor Law Valuation of £631 5s. 0d., is totally inadequate having regard to the area, situation and character of the lands.

Accordingly, as we are not satisfied, having regard to the factors prescribed in s. 32, sub-s. 3, of the Land Act, 1933, that these lands, which are non-residential, are providing an adequate amount of employment, we consider that the plea, certainly on that portion of the protective provisions of the section, fails. In all the circumstances we are of opinion that the objection has not been sustained, and accordingly we disallow it. We award, in respect of the two hearings, £30. 0s. 0d. costs, payable by the Land Commission."

The proceedings for the acquisition of the said lands were instituted in accordance with the provisions of s. 25 of the Land Act, 1936, by the publication in "Iris Oifigiuil" of (a) A certificate by the Lay Commissioners dated the 23rd January, 1950, and (b) A Provisional List of the said lands such as is mentioned in s. 40, sub-s. 2, of the Land Act, 1923.

These are incorporated in the report of the proceedings before the Lay Commissioners.

The Lay Commissioners found as a fact that the lands were not providing an adequate amount of employment, having regard to the factors prescribed in s. 32, sub-s. 3, of the Land Act, 1933.

The grounds of the objection are set out therein. The objection is set out in the report of the Lay Commissioners.

The amended notice of appeal contains a series of objections in relation to the conduct of the proceedings before the Lay Commissioners. I allowed this amended notice of appeal. The matters raised therein were discussed at length on the hearing before me.

The difficulties in this case really arise on the construction of s. 32, sub-s. 3, of the Land Act, 1933 (amended by s. 30, sub-s. 21, of the Land Act, 1950).

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any other enactment, the Land Commission shall not acquire compulsorily for any purpose other than the relief of congestion in the same locality or the provision of sports fields, parks, pleasure-grounds, or play-grounds, for the inhabitants of villages, towns, or cities or for schools, or the provision of gardens for schools any land in respect of which the Lay Commissioners are satisfied that, having regard to the area, situation and character of such land, the amount of congestion and unemployment existing in the district in which such land is situate and the country generally, and the desirability of increasing the production of food supplies, such land is producing an adequate amount of agricultural products and is providing an adequate amount of employment, reckoning in such employment any relatives of the tenant or proprietor of such land permanently employed on such land."

The Lay Commissioners have not made any finding as to the amount of agricultural products produced on the land. They have found it is not providing an adequate amount of employment. They took the view that the objector must establish within the terms of the section that such land is producing an adequate amount of agricultural products and is providing an adequate amount of employment and that if the objection fails on one of these grounds it fails altogether.

The evidence and the owners' accounts appear to establish that the lands were in full production as a grazing farm. The owners' accounts appear to establish the sale in 1951 of over £23,000 worth of food supplies in the form of cattle and sheep. The sale of wheat and oats fell from £1,543 in 1949 to £100 in 1951. There was a corresponding drop in wages from £1,565 to £800. Three men were employed on the lands at the time of acquisition. Their wages would amount to approximately £500.

Mr. Powell, for the appellant, contends that adequate employment is related to the way the land is used; that this is a first-class grazing farm and that the employment is adequate for the character and use of the lands. He submits that these lands were well farmed, that the section is very...