87 / 736
make it available for inspection; must re
ceive and consider objections and representa
tions, and must afford an objecting ratepayer
the opportunity of stating his case. If any
amendment were made in the draft, which
was a material alteration of the draft pro
posals, notice of
such amendment must
similarly be given and like opportunities
afforded. Apart from
this procedure, no
power of amending the draft was conferred
on the planning authority and, I think neces
sarily and designedly so.
(Mrs. Anne Teresa Finn v. Bray Urban
Council—9/12/1967).
Lateral Support for Adjoining Premises
In a reserved judgment delivered on 7th
December, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled
that a
local authority cannot require the
owner of a premises demolished on foot of
the authority's order to provide permanent
lateral support for adjoining premises. The
question before the Court arose out of the
correct construction of Section 3 (1) of the
Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act,
1964. The sub-section authorised a sanitary
authority to serve a notice on the owner of
a dangerous structure requiring the owner
to carry out such works, including demolition
in part or whole, specified in the notice "as
will, in the opinion of the sanitary authority,
prevent the structure from being a dangerous
structure."
The premises involved formed part of a
terrace. On June 10th, 1965, the corporation
served a notice on the Plaintiff ordering her
to
take down
the structure and provide
lateral support to adjoining structures. She
failed to comply with this and in December,
1965. a District Justice ordered her to com
ply with the notice. On appeal, the order of
the District Justice was affirmed, she then
appealed to the High Court. The President of
the High Court held that neither the District
Court nor the Circuit Court, on appeal were
empowered to review the opinion of the
sanitary authority either that a structure was
dangerous or as to the steps to be taken to
deal with it. An owner brought before the
Court by the sanitary authority could there
fore ask for nothing except that he should
be allowed another chance to carry out the
work specified in the notice. There was no
appeal provision.
The Chief Justice (delivering the judg
ment of the Court) said that the corporation's
notice had stated that lateral support should
be provided during
the carrying out of
demolition work; this, in his opinion, would
constitute a condition within sub-section 3.
The substance of the dispute was whether the
Act authorised the corporation to require the
Plaintiff to shore up the adjoining structure
after her premises had been demolished.
The Court held that the corporation erred
in requiring the Plaintiff to provide per
manent lateral support for the adjoining
structure. These should be prevented from
being dangerous but whatever the rights,
inter se, of the Plaintiff and the owners
of
adjoining premises,
the corporation's
powers to prevent these premises from being
dangerous structures were exercisable only
against their owners.
The Court dismissed with costs the appeal
of the Dublin Corporation against Mrs. Una
McGuinness, owner of 125/126, The Coombe,
Dublin.
The Dual Purpose Official
Plaintiffs were public assistant officials of
the Tipperary (South Riding) County Coun
cil. They claimed that under the terms of
their employment they held, or were entitled
to hold, in addition to these offices the office
of cottage rent collector for their respective
districts, and they asked for certain declara
tions and reliefs.
The defence in each case was a denial that
the appointments contained any such term
or condition as the Plaintiffs alleged; that if
such a term or condition was contained, it
was ultra vires the Council as having been
made without the appropriate Ministerial
sanction or consent; and such consent was
likewise ultra vires. In the course of his
judgment Mr.
Justice Butler said:
"The
primary aim of Local Government Acts and
particularly the more modern Acts is to en
able
the Local Authorities
to
function
efficiently in the complex business of admin
istering Local Government in their area and
carrying out their functions while vesting in
the Minister powers of supervision, control
and
intervention to
insure efficiency and
economy, fairness in the local administration
and overall government policy. Subject to
allowing
the Minister
these powers,
the
statutes should, in my opinion, be construed
liberally so as to enable normal and adminis
trative executive decisions to be made and
acts performed without the Council being
held in leading strings by the Department."
67