The Gazette 1977

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.

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

Leinster Importing Company