29 / 262
UNREPORTED IRISH CASES
Appeal against public control of Tara dismissed. Law
relating to national monuments clarified.
In a reserved judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed
an appeal brought by Mrs. Marie E. Tormey, of Castle-
town House, Tara, Co. Meath, who had sought an
injunction to prevent the Commissioners of Public
Works from taking over a certain part of a 112 acre
farm at Tara for the purpose of excavations.
Her action, in which she sought the injunction in
the High Court was dismissed by Mr. Justice McLough-
lin in 1968 with no order as to costs. The Supreme
Court also made no order as to costs, the Chief Justice
Mr. Justice O Dalaigh) stating that this was a case of
very considerable importance for the Commissioners and
he hoped it had helped to clarify the law.
The Chief Justice, who delivered the unanimous
judgment of the court, said that under the National
Monuments' Act, 1930, the Commissioners for Public
Works might, with the consent of the Minister for
Finance, acquire compulsorily or by agreement "any
national monument which they consider it expedient to
acquire."
Among the ancient monuments to which the Ancient
Monuments' Protection Act, 1882, applied, was "the
earth works on the Hill of Tara."
The predecessor of Mrs. Tormey in title to the pro-
perty, Rebecca Bobbet, by deed dated November 21st,
1908. availed of a provision under the Act to constitute
the Commissioners guardians of the ancient monument
of which she was owner. The earthworks, which were
situated within a 57 acre area of the 112 acre farm,
were the subject matter of the Commissioners' notice to
treat on May 25th, 1967. Mrs. Tormey, while naturally
desirous of retaining the whole area for grazing, had
confined her objection in the High Court, in effect, to
the acquisition of a 10-acre field, and however one
interpreted the extent of the claim she made in the
course of the evidence in the High Court, her counsel
in the Supreme Court did not seek to contest the
Commissioners' acquisition except in respect of this
field.
The Chief Justice said it had been submitted on
behalf of Mrs. Tormey that it was not enough to show
that a national monument was likely to exist in the
10-acre field, and there was no power under the Town
and Country Planning Act, 1947. to acquire land on
that basis. It had also been submitted that if facilities
for archaeological excavation were to be contemplated,
then express powers, as to the powers of prospecting,
which were to be found in the Minerals' Development
Act. 1940. should have found a place under the
National Monuments' Act, 1930. Moreover, the Hill of
Taa. it was urged, was not itself a national monument.
The Chief Justice said that counsel for the Com-
missioners had argued that the burden of the evidence
showed the importance of the whole site and that the
Hill of Tara could not be chopped up. The previous
owner, it had been submitted, had in the guardianship
deed, voluntarily chosen the boundaries of the area
which the commissioners were now seeking to acquire
and in doing so had acknowledged it to be a national
monument.
On the evidence he would be prepared to hold that,
even viewed narrowly, the 10-acre field had sufficient
archaeological features to warrant its inclusion in the
notice to treat which was the necessary preliminary to
acquisition.
The Act also authorised the Commissioners to acquire
such additional land as was needed for the preservation
of the amenities of the site. In his view, counsel for the
Commissioners was right in submitting that the Hill of
Tara was properly to be regarded as a single unified
site and not a series of separate archaeological monu-
ments. On that basis the acquisition of the 10-acre field
to preserve the amenities of the Hill of Tara was well
warranted.
The Chief Justice added : "It will not, I hope, be out
of place to call attention to the fact that this is not the
first time that a land owner was disturbed at Tara.
One of the archaeological sites at Tara is traditionally
known as Cormac's house; it lies within Rath na
Riogh."
Tradition was that Cormac built the great vallum
surrounding Rath na Riogh on land belonging to
Odran who protested loudly when Cormac began to
stake out his work. When the king came to take pos-
session of the house, Odran set his back against the
door to prevent the king from entering. The king turned
his wrath away with the softest answer conceivable :
he promised to compensate him by paying him his own
weight in silver, daily rations for a household of nine
for as long as the king should live, and land of equi-
valent value elsewhere.
"Today, Cormac's successors, the Commissioners of
Public Works, must pay compensation for extending
themselves at Tara (rightly as I hold), just as Cormac
did."
The Chief Justice added when the commissioners
came to negotiate terms of compensation with the dis-
possessed owner, they might bear in mind that while
they did not command royal wealth, or unlimited dis-
cretion a niggardly spirit was foreign to the genius and
tradition of Cormac Mac Airt, Tara's greatest king.
When Mr. Richard Cooke, S.C., applied for the costs
of the appeal, the Chief Justice said it was a case of
very considerable importance for the Commissioners and
he had hoped it had helped to clarify the law.
The Chief Justice said there would be no order as
to costs.
[Tormey v. Commissioners of Public Works; Sup-
reme Court; unreported; 22 December 1972.]
Union's right to refuse transfer Constitutional.
A union which withheld its consent to the transfer
of one of its members to another union was held by the
Supreme Court not to have infringed in any way the
constitutional right of the worker concerned.
In a reserved judgment the Court held that the
National Union of Vehicle Builders, and the chairman
and secretary of the Dublin branch of the union, in
deciding to exercise such rights as they had under an
agreement entered into with the Irish Congress of
Trade Unions had not infringed the constitutional right
of Laurence Murphy, a Dublin motor assembly worker,
of Drimnagh.
The Union was appealing against a decision of Mr.
Justice Murnaghan in the High Court in which he held
that the refusal of the Union to grant Mr. Murphy a
28