The Gazette 1973

tory duty, recommended by resolution that Mr. Molloy should appoint persons from its planning staff to hear statements from ratepayers objecting to the plan. In the same month Mr. Molloy purported to appoint five named persons to hear the statements, Mr. Mackey said. Mr. Mackey submitted that while the city manager had power to delegate functions to the assistant city manager, that power was limited to functions which the city manager could himself exercise. The function which the city manager purported to delegate in this case, he submitted, was a function reserved to members of the City Council by statute and it could not be exercised by the city manager. Mr. W. D. Finlay, S.C., who appeared for the Cor- poration, said that the area was intended to be used as a car park. The objections which had been made had been considered by the Planning Committee of the Corporation. That body had recommended the exclu- sion of Mr. O'Hora's premises from the plan and a revised draft would be submitted to the Corporation for approval. There was, said Mr. Finlay, a vital distinction be- tween preparing a draft of a proposed plan and making a plan. At a practical level it was essential that the act of the Planning Authority in making a plan must be preceded by a great number of preliminary steps but the Statute nowhere provided that the taking of the preliminary steps was to be a reserved function. The reserved function was the making of a plan or making variations in the plan. Mr. Justice Teevan, in his judgment, said he was satisfied that the appointment of persons to hear state- ments objecting to the plan was not a reserved function. The Legislature was always specific, either by means of a direct statement as to a particular function or in a general definitive way, in saying what were and what were not to be considered as reserved functions. Any- thing which the Legislature did not in one way or other make a reserved function was, accordingly, an execu- tive function. Mr. Finlay had drawn attention to the careful and discriminating way in which the 1963 Act had laid down what were to be reserved functions, said the Judge. He had also drawn a distinction between the making of a plan and the preparation of a draft plan. " I am quite satisfied that this particular function which must be undertaken in compliance with Section 21 (2) of the Act, is an executive function or, to be more legally precise, it is not a reserved function and that it lies in the power of the assistant city manager to make these appointments." Mr. Justice Teevan allowed a stay on the order for costs. [O'Hora v. Dublin Corporation] The Irish Times (26 July 1968) Forfeiture of lease granted where false claim to posses- sion made by tenant. By lease of August 1895, Patrick O'Reilly, the grand- father of the plaintiff, demised the premises 60 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin, to Richard Tobin for twenty years at an annual rent of £125. In 1903 the twenty year period was extended by a further thirty years until July 1945. On 20 August 1946 the plaintiff made a further lease to six Sisters of Charity for a further period of thirty years from 15 July 1945 at a rent of £295. The defendant Sister is the sole survivor. The premises intended to be demised by the 1946 lease were 87

missal for redundancy was imposed on the employer who was entitled to a refund of half of the amount paid by him, from the redundancy fund. One of the purposes of the redundancy certificate was to enable the employee to see how the sum was calculated. In none of the cases which had come before the Court had the employee signed the certificate. It was impor- tant to emphasise, in the interest of employers, that the employer must get the employee to sign the certi- ficate when the lump sum was being paid. If this had been done in the present case, the dispute would never have arisen. If an employer agreed to pay a larger sum than the statutory lump sum, the employee did not lose his right to the payment of the statutory lump sum in addition unless the employer established (1) that the employee knew the amount of the statutory lump sum before, or at the time of his dismissal; and (2) that the employee agreed to accept the sum offered in discharge of the employer's liability to pay the statutory lump sum. The Judge said he did not accept the view that where an employer paid an amount equal to or greater than the statutory lump sum when the negotiations were going on, and that this amount was never men- tioned to the employee, that this complied with the provisions of the Act. In his view, the employee was entitled in this case to be paid the statutory lump sum of £132 in addition to the £500 paid him by his employers. Mr. Seamus Egan, S.C., for the Minister, said that as the case had been brought for the purpose of clari- fying the position under the Act, he had been instructed not to oppose the payment of costs to either party in the proceedings, and Mr. Justice Kenny said that both Irish Independent (7 March 1973) Objector to plan will contest development plan order. Judge dismisses action against corporation as no reserved function involved. Mr. Justice Teevan, in the High Court, Dublin, yester- day, dismissed with costs an action brought by William J. O'Hora, of 6-7 Francis Street, Dublin, against the Dublin Corporation. Mr. Rex Mackey, who appeared for Mr. O'Hora, sub- mitted that Mr. James B. Molloy, assistant city manager, had appointed, without authority, five persons to hear representations from persons who objected to a proposed development plan for the Francis street area of Dublin. Mr. O'Hora sought a declaration that the order was void and of no force and effect. He also sought an injunction restraining the Corporation from making a development plan or from doing any act affecting his property rights until his case, as a ratepayer making objection to the draft plan, has been entertained in accordance with law. The Corporation, in its defence, denied that it had acted wrongfully. Mr. Mackey said that in May 1967 the Corporation caused notice of the draft of the proposed development plan to be published. This plan provided for the demo- lition of Mr. O'Hora's property. Availing himself of the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, Mr. O'Hora lodged objections to the plan and requested an opportunity to state his case. In August last, the Corporation, in breach of statu- parties would be allowed their costs. [O'Connor v. Irish Dunlop Co. Ltd.]