Supreme Court ruling on compensation for lands devalued due to electricity power lines could affect thousands of landowners
A
Supreme Court
decision that compensation can be awarded for depreciation of the value of lands due to having electricity power lines installed across them could potentially affect thousands of landowners.
The five-judge court on Thursday rejected arguments by the
ESB
that a property arbitrator was not entitled to include compensation for land depreciation – referred to in the relevant 19th century law as 'injurious affection' – in an award of €39,500 statutory compensation to a couple over power lines installed across their farm.
Arbitrator Peter Good, since deceased, had made the award to Peter and Rose O'Reilly concerning lands owned by them at Crubany, Co
Cavan
. Compensation for 'injurious affection' formed a substantial part of the award; its inclusion was successfully appealed by the ESB to the High Court.
The couple appealed the High Court decision to the
Court of Appeal
, which decided the matter raised issues of public importance requiring determination by the Supreme Court.
READ MORE
On Friday, Mr Justice Brian Murray, giving the court's main judgment, upheld arguments by Peter Bland SC, with barrister Michael O'Donnell, instructed by solicitor Gabriel Toolan, that the entitlement to compensation includes that for 'injurious affection'.
The case arose after the couple entered landowner agreements with the ESB in 2011. In return for unobstructed access to their lands to construct electric lines, they were entitled to compensation under the Electricity Supply Act 1927.
The main issue in the Supreme Court appeal concerned the extent of the right to compensation. Mr Good decided that as well as compensation for the loss of value of house sites on the land holding across which the lines travel, they were entitled to compensation for injurious affection, or general loss of value of their entire holding.
Among his findings, Mr Justice Murray said none of the legal authorities demand a 'perfect equation' between the compensation mandated by the Constitution for interference with property interests, and the compensation enabled either by developments of the common law or by early Victorian legislation governing the compulsory acquisition of property.
The ESB was correct in saying the exercise of powers conferred by section 53 of the 1927 Act did not give rise to the transfer or creation of interests 'in land', he said. There was therefore no basis on which it could be said the 'injurious affection' provisions of the 1845 Land Clauses Consolidation Act were automatically incorporated into the procedure for deciding compensation under the 1927 Act.
[
Losing SEAI retrofit services bidder challenges refusal to disclose pricing structure of winning bid
Opens in new window
]
No significance could be attached to the fact the 1927 Act did not expressly include or exclude those provisions, he said.
He said the High Court had erred if it found the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 operated in any way to preclude a claimant seeking compensation for injurious affection or depreciation of the value of their holding caused by the presence of the electric lines, poles and pylons, he said.
In other findings, he held Mr Good erred when he fixed compensation for anticipated exercise of the power of re-entry on to the lands. He upheld the High Court decision there was no breach by Mr Good, in his handling of the matter, of the ESB's right to fair procedures.
The precise amount of compensation was referred for decision, in line with the court's findings, by a new arbitrator.
In a separate concurring judgment, Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe agreed with his colleague on all issues other than the constitutional issue and said he was reserving his position on that to an appropriate case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
40 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Why is it costing me more to use green fuel in my car than fossil fuels?
May I draw attention to an item that seems to escape scrutiny and that is the higher per litre pump price of HVO (hydrogenated vegetable oil). I switched my 1.5-litre diesel car to HVO in early 2024, when it was cheaper but the supplier has increased it since, stating the original price was an introductory promotion. The fuel is currently costing two to three cent more per litre than the prevailing diesel price. The Department of Transport has not responded to two queries re the taxation element, which ought to reflect the lower emissions factor. This seems to indicate that Revenue considerations supersede environmental objectives, and this deserves examination. Mr W.K. READ MORE As our carbon emissions continue to rise despite everything we are being told about the perils of climate change, it is good to see some people making the necessary personal choices to reduce emissions. But I can fully understand your chagrin at having made the switch only to see you are actually paying more for your biofuel than you would be if you had stuck with diesel, a fossil fuel. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland said hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO) is a renewable form of biofuel derived from vegetable oil, which is processed with hydrogen, to create a diesel substitute product. It says HVO can have a carbon footprint that is at least 65 per cent lower than conventional fossil fuel, such as diesel. For its part, Revenue tells me that HVO, like all liquid fuels, is subject to mineral oil tax. However, the tax applied to biofuels produced by biomass, including HVO, relieved of the carbon component of the tax. What does that mean? Well, the diesel you used to use has an motor oil tax charge of €595.68 per thousand litres, or just shy of 0.6 cent per litre. HVO has a motor oil tax charge of €425.72 per thousand litres as it is excused the €169.96 carbon element of the diesel tax rate. That comes to just over 0.4 cent per litre. So, all other things being equal, your HVO should cost 0.17 cent less per litre. For other people reading this, it is worth bearing in mind that the figures will vary slightly if your biofuel is replacing petrol or if you are using it for heating. It will be different again for those using blended fuels where the dispensation applies only to the portion that is biofuel. You can find all the details here . Revenue also notes that the relief from the carbon component of motor oil tax is granted to the supplier at the top of the chain. This means the price paid by wholesalers and retailers already allows for that ...which is why you should expect to benefit from the relief. Moving on from motor oil tax, fuels are also liable in Ireland to value added tax (VAT). Irish VAT rates are obliged to work within EU rules although there is some wriggle room in places. In this case, motor fuels are subject to the standard rate of VAT – currently 23 per cent. Ireland does use the discretion available to it to tax HVO at a lower rate of VAT – 13.5 per cent – but only when it is used as a heating oil, not in cars. So where does that leave us? Well, you're paying fractionally less tax on your HVO and you have the comfort of knowing that it sharply reduces the emissions from your car. However, that does not mean it is cheaper. There are two factors here. First, HVO is more expensive to produce than diesel. The industry says this is due to higher production costs and the challenge of sourcing raw material in industrial quantities. In fact, if one UK supplier is to be believed, you should be expecting to pay 10-15 per cent more for HVO than diesel but I understand the UK gives HVO no relief such as is available in Ireland under motor oil tax. The other factor is that it is not as efficient as diesel for your car. That means you will need to purchase around 7.3 per cent more HVO to cover the same mileage as you would with diesel. This is why most HVO in Ireland is, I understand, used by commercial fleets rather than by individual motorists. For companies, the offsetting by the green credentials may make it more attractive despite the added costs. But it is also why consumers need to ensure they are fully informed of the longer-term budgetary impact before making a decision to switch to such fuels. You note you switched at a time when the supplier was offering HVO at a price lower than diesel. I would have hoped the supplier made it clear this was an introductory offer but it appears from your letter that they didn't. That's not a great way for a long-term supplier of fuel to build a relationship of trust. From what I can gather, it will cost you more to run your car with HVO than with diesel. And that is even with the preferential tax rate. You suggest Revenue considerations appear to supersede environmental objections. On the basis of the motor oil tax relief, that's not entirely fair, although it is true to say the incentive to go green is modest – perhaps too modest given the additional base costs outlined above. The Government faces a choice. Either it increases the incentives available to accelerate take-up among the public, or it relies on people caring more for the environmental (and likely financial) benefits for future generations than their own pocket. On a related note, if Government departments are simply ignoring queries that come into them, it is dispiriting. The Department of Transport is among the department supposedly leading the Government's charge to hit what now appear to be unattainable climate change targets by the end of the decade. You would think they should be encouraging moves in that direction and pointing people in the direction of the information that helps them make informed choices. Ignoring people inevitably irritates people and makes them less receptive to messages the Government tells us it considers important. The information you sought was readily available from Government departments – Revenue was able to provide me with the details and point me to references within 24 hours – so it really was not beyond the department to direct your query appropriately and provide you with the basic information sought. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street Dublin 2, or by email to with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Rent controls to be eased for new builds in planned ‘pressure zones' reform
Restrictions on rent increases are to be eased for newly-built homes but the current caps would remain in place for existing tenancies under plans to be considered by the Government this week. Decisions on the major overhaul of the Rent Pressure Zone (RPZ) system are expected to be made by the Coalition over the next 48 hours. Any easing of the RPZ system is likely to be politically contentious and will be closely scrutinised by Opposition parties. The reforms are being considered following a review of RPZs which was introduced in 2016 to cap rent increases in areas where there is a high demand for housing and rental homes. READ MORE Under the current system, rent increases in locations designated as RPZs cannot be greater than the rate of inflation or 2 per cent – whichever is lower. There has been some concern that the RPZ system has negatively impacted on the level of private investment in new housing developments. Under the proposals being considered by Government, the current RPZ annual caps would not apply to new buildings constructed after a certain date – a measure aimed at increasing private sector investment to deliver more housing. The Irish Times understands that rents in the new-builds would instead be tied to inflation. The current rent increase cap of 2 per cent annually would remain in place for existing tenancies, though landlords would be able to change the rents between tenancies, something they currently are not allowed to do. The changes to the RPZ system would be accompanied by enhanced protection for renters in relation to security of tenure amounting to a minimum of six years. There would be a restriction on no-fault evictions during this six year period – a measure that will require legislation. The landlord would be allowed to reset the rent every six years to the market rate. The Coalition leaders and senior Government ministers are expected to discuss the plans during a meeting on Monday evening. Ultimately the proposals would then go to Cabinet on Tuesday morning for a final decision. A Housing Commission report, published last July was critical of RPZs and proposed changing them to a 'reference rent' system that pegs rent increases to nearly homes of a similar quality.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Despite the politics, Ireland is Israel's second biggest export market for goods
Perhaps the most surprising statistic to tumble out of the ether in recent days – and into Ireland's increasingly fractious debate on the Occupied Territories Bill – relates to Israel 's exports to Ireland. Figures from the UN's trade database, Comtrade, reveal that Ireland, despite its outspoken stance on Israel, is Tel Aviv's second most important export market for goods behind the US. The Comtrade figures show Israel exported $61.7 billion worth of merchandise in 2024. The biggest importers of those Israeli products were the US with $17.3 billion, followed by Ireland with $3.3 billion and China with $2.9 billion. This makes Ireland, Israel's most important European market for goods exports ahead of the Netherlands ($2.7 billion), Germany ($2.4 billion), the UK ($1.6 billion), Belgium ($1.5 billion) and France ($1.4 billion). READ MORE The figures provide a curious counterpoint to the frayed diplomatic relations between Dublin and Tel Aviv. The Central Statistics Office (CSO) provisionally estimates that Ireland imported €3.83 billion ($4.4 billion) of goods from Israel last year, which is even higher than Comtrade's estimate. Over 95 per cent of this trade (€3.65 billion) falls into the 'electrical machinery, apparatus, and appliances' category, the CSO said.. In Comtrade's categorisation, the bulk of the trade is covered by the 8542 category which applies to 'electronic integrated circuits and microassemblies'. Anecdotal evidence suggests this – in the main – relates to chip manufacturer Intel in Leixlip importing inputs from its sister Intel plant in Kiryat Gat, Israel, which would not be affected by the Occupied Territories Bill provisions. Ireland's dialled-up rhetoric against Israel (Taoiseach Micheál Martin now explicitly accuses it of genocide, having previously accused it of 'genocidal acts') sits uneasily with the economy's links to corporate America. However, apart from a warning from former US ambassador to Ireland, Claire Cronin, last year that Ireland's proposed Occupied Territories Bill (banning the sale or import of goods from illegally occupied Palestinian territory) would have 'consequences', both the US and Ireland have largely ignored their potential point of division, perhaps to Israel's annoyance. Government sources claim Ireland's business ties with the US 'aren't overly strained' by the Government's stance on Israel and that tariffs are the main focus at present. With Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu now lashing out at allies France, Britain and Canada, accusing them of being 'on the wrong side of history' and 'emboldening Hamas' for criticising Tel Aviv, Ireland's stance has more political cover. Shifting global opinion Last month, EU foreign ministers from 17 member states (a majority) backed a Dutch proposal to review the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the free trade agreement that allows Israel sell some €15 billion a year of arms, wine, cosmetics and other items to Europe on preferential terms. This marked something of a turning point in the bloc's attitude to Israel. A year ago, when Ireland and Spain, the European governments most vocal about Israel's actions in Gaza, pushed for a review, they garnered little support. But Israel's three-month blockade of Gaza, stopping food and aid getting into the Palestinian enclave, has burnt through the political capital Israel traditionally has with the EU and with EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen who has – until now -sought to preserve EU-Israeli ties. In a marked difference in tone last week, she described Israel's attacks on civilians as 'abhorrent' and something that 'cannot be justified under humanitarian and international law'. The EU's review will examine whether Israel is in breach of article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which defines respect for human rights as an 'essential element' of the agreement. Given the scale of Israeli atrocities in Gaza, backed by findings from the UN, international courts and other agencies, it's hard to see how Israel could not be found to be in breach. The review might be complete before the next EU foreign ministers' meeting on June 23rd, creating a potential flashpoint in EU-Israeli relations. How EU sanctions against Isreal – if it comes to that – will wash with the US and impact delicate trade negotiations is impossible to say. The EU as a bloc is Israel's largest trading partner, accounting for 29 per cent of its trade in goods in 2022, so trade sanctions would be consequential for Tel Aviv. But insiders suggest that while the review will be critical of Israel, the EU will resist going down the sanctions route given the opposition to those in some quarters. Hungary, which intends to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC) in protest at its issuing of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, recently hosted the Israeli prime minister on a state visit despite of and in defiance of the warrant. 'I don't think EU sanctions will be forthcoming in the short term. There isn't unanimity for this,' a Government source said, albeit noting that negative noise among EU member states is growing.
