220 / 264
GAZE1TE
DECEMBER1977
PLANNING ACT
Whether powers of Compulsory
Acquisition vested In Planning
Authority.
The defendant County Council made
a Compulsory Purchase Order called
the "Dublin County Council
Compulsory Purchase (Local
Go v e r nme nt
P l a n n i ng
&
Development ) Act, 1963, No. 3
Order, 1971", which was confirmed
by the Mi n i s t er for Local
Government on 16 January,
1974. The Order was entitled
"Compulsory Purchase Order under
Section 76 of and the Third Schedule
to the Housing Act, 1966, as
extended by Section 10 of the Local
Go v e r nme nt ( N o . 2) Ac t
1960—Local Government (Ireland)
Act, 1898—Local Government Acts,
1925-1968—Local Government
(Sanitary Services) Acts, 1878-
1964—Local Government (Planning
& Development) Act, 1963—Local
Government (No. 2) Act, 1960". The
Order authorised die defendants to
acquire the lands of the plaintifTs
compulsorily for the purpose of
providing for residential and ancillary
development, which included the
provision of recreational open space
including playing fields. It was argued
by the plaintiff that the defendant
County Council can only acquire
lands for recreational purposes in its
capacity as Planning Authority, and
that even though it be both Planning
and Local Authority its functions as
Local Authority are separate and
cannot be exercised when acting as
Planning Authority. The Judgment of
Kenny J. in Movie News Limited v.
Galway County Council (30/3/73
unreported) was relied on. The
defendant County Council accepted
the Movie News decision of Mr.
Justice Kenny but argued that Section
11 of the Local Government (No. 2)
Act, 1960, by interpreting Section
10(1) of the Local Government
(Ireland) Act 1898 did give a Local
Authority power of acquisition.
Held
that Section 11 (lXc) of the
1960 Act could hardly be more com-
prehensive in its terms. On the cor-
rect interpretation of this Section with
Section 10 of the 1898 Act the defen-
dant was entitled to acquire these
lands compulsorily and such acquisi-
tion could, under the new Section 10
of the 1960 Act, be effected under
that Act for the purposes of the 1963
Act.
Leinster Importing Company
Limited v. Dublin County Coun-
cil—The High Court—Judgment of
McWilllam J.—unreported—26
January,
1977.
SALE OF LAND
Specific performance reftised becaue
of fundamental unfairness In
transaction.
The plaintiffs wished to acquire the
defendant's land as part of the site of
a proposed smelter plant. The
plaintiff's agent gave the defendant's
husband, who did all the negotiating
on the defendant's behalf, the
impression that if the defendant did
not sell lands to plaintiff, the Local
Authority would compulsorily
acquire the lands and pass them on
the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's
Managing Director knew this, and
when the defendant was reluctant to
sell the Managing Director called
upon the Chairman, Vice-Chairman,
Co u n t y Ma n a g er and t he
Development Officer of the Local
Authority to discuss the position.
Following this meeting, the
Chairman, Vice-Chairman, County
Manager and Development Officer
called to see the defendant's husband,
and left him under the impression
that a Compulsory Purchase Order
would follow if there was no
voluntary sale to the plaintiffs. This
was not, in fact, the true position, in
that the Local Authority had no
intention of making any compulsory
purchase order. Following this
meeting with the officials of the Local
Authority the defendant gave the
plaintiffs a successive series of
options, but when the plaintiffs
attempted to exercise a current
option the defendant declined to
complete.
Held
that the plaintiff would not get
specific performance because there
was a fundamental unfairness in the
transaction. The defendant gave the
option under the impression that a
Compulsory Purchase Order would
follow if no voluntary sale was
completed.
Smelter Corporation of Ireland
Limited v. Sablna Mary O'Driscoll
Supreme Court—Judgment of
O'Hlggins C. J.—unreported—29
July, 1977.
TRADE UNION LAW
Picketing lawful by a minority of
t r ade
un i on
memb e rs
notwithstanding the existence of a
compensatory termination agreement
between the employer and the
majority of die members of the trade
unions involved.
Appeal from Hamilton J. dismissing
an injunction against picketing. The
defendants were all members of the
Irish Transport and General Workers
Union, and were all former
employees of the plaintiff Company
at their factory at East Wall, Dublin.
The Plaintiff Company was engaged
in the manufacture of fertilisers, and
had two plants, one in East Wall,
Dublin, and one in Cork. By reason
of the substantial falling off in the
plaintiffs sales on the home market,
it was decided to close down the East
Wall plant, and to concentrate in
future on the Cork plant. The closure
of the East Wall plant was to take
place on 30 June, 1976. This
decision was communicated by the
plaintiffs and the different unions
concerned at various meetings
starting on 14 June, 1976. Finally an
agreement was reached with the 11
Unions concerned, and the plaintiffs
issued a six-point statement on 23
July, 1976. The terms for
compensation were higher than
would have been payable under the
Redundancy Payments Acts, and the
Unions agreed to these terms on 27
July, 1976.
However, the defendants would
not accept these terms, and on 30
July, 1976, they refused to leave the
factory premisess and staged a sit-in.
This led to the first High Court
proceedings on the part of the
plaintiffs and the granting of an
injunction against the defendants in
respect of their trespassing, which
was duly obeyed.
However, on 23 August, 1976,
these defendants, who had at all
times opposed the closing of the
plant, and the conclusion of any
agreement with the plaintiffs,
commenced to picket the East Wall
premises. This led to a further
application by the plaintiffs for an
injunction to restrain such picketing;
on the ground that it was illegal, and
that it prevented them removing from
East Wall a large tonnage of valuable
fertiliser material which could be used
in Cork. The defendants duly
contended that their action was
lawfully taken in pursuance of a trade
dispute relating to the closing of the
plant, and the non employment of the
defendants in the work still requiring
to be done. Because of the urgency of
the matter, pleadings were dispensed
with in the High Court, and the case
19