Supreme Court decision on compensation over 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 rejected arguments by the Electricity Supply Board (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.
Advertisement
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, and its inclusion was successfully appealed by the ESB to the High Court.
The couple appealed the High Court to the Court of Appeal, which decided the matter raised issues of public importance requiring determination by the Supreme Court.
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 for 'injurious affection'.
Advertisement
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 that the 'injurious affection' provisions of the 1845 Land Clauses Consolidation Act were automatically incorporated into the procedure for deciding compensation under the 1927 Act.
Advertisement
No significance could be attached to the fact that the 1927 Act did not expressly include or exclude those provisions, he said.
Ireland
'Author' of property fraud scheme faces prison ter...
Read More
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 the anticipated exercise of the power of re-entry onto the lands. He upheld the High Court decision that 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 Seamus Woulfe agreed with his colleague on all issues other than the constitutional issue and said he was reserving his position on that issue to an appropriate case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
41 minutes ago
- The Sun
Shoppers go wild for Cadbury's new chocolate bar flavour on shelves at local store
SHOPPERS have been scrambling to taste a band new Cadbury chocolate bar as it hits store shelves. The new tasty treat has caught the eye of many consumers - but Cadbury has said it won't be around forever. 2 The Twirl White Dipped was teased by the company last month in a Facebook video. These bars are much like Cadbury's popular Twirls - but are coated with white chocolate instead. "OK but we've really outdone ourselves with this one," they told shoppers. They described the flavour as "unreal, indulgent, smooth, swirly, creamy, melty, new, and mouthwatering". But a few weeks on from its tantalising announcement, the chocolate bar has now been spotted in stores. Its presence was flagged by the popular Facebook account Newfoodsuk. The account posted: "Wow, these are outstanding - closest bar you'll ever get to a Cadbury Snowflake! "We spotted these at our local convenience store!" The bars hit shelves on June 2, but are only set to be available for a limited time. Katya Savelieva, Brand Manager for Twirl at Mondelez International, said: 'Cadbury Twirl has always been a fan favourite, so it's no surprise that limited editions like Cadbury Twirl Orange and Cadbury Twirl Mint had everyone talking. "With smooth white chocolate surrounding our iconic milk chocolate swirls, the new Twirl White Dipped is an indulgence you won't want to miss - grab it as soon as you can and experience Twirl like never before.' Twirl bar were first released in Ireland in 1985, as a single finger bar. They hit UK shelves two years later in its classic double finger form. How to save money on chocolate We all love a bit of chocolate from now and then, but you don't have to break the bank buying your favourite bar. Consumer reporter Sam Walker reveals how to cut costs... Go own brand - if you're not too fussed about flavour and just want to supplant your chocolate cravings, you'll save by going for the supermarket's own brand bars. Shop around - if you've spotted your favourite variety at the supermarket, make sure you check if it's cheaper elsewhere. Websites like let you compare prices on products across all the major chains to see if you're getting the best deal. Look out for yellow stickers - supermarket staff put yellow, and sometimes orange and red, stickers on to products to show they've been reduced. They usually do this if the product is coming to the end of its best-before date or the packaging is slightly damaged. Buy bigger bars - most of the time, but not always, chocolate is cheaper per 100g the larger the bar. So if you've got the appetite, and you were going to buy a hefty amount of chocolate anyway, you might as well go bigger.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Post Office victims offered ‘pathetic' payouts: 0.5% of their claims
Dozens of postmasters caught up in the Post Office Horizon scandal have been offered compensation of just a fraction of their original claims, according to a forensic accountant working on their cases. Kay Linnell, a former chief investigating accountant at the Inland Revenue, now HM Revenue & Customs, described the offers made to victims as 'pathetic' and argued that the compensation schemes seemed 'designed to fail'. She is aware of about 30 subpostmasters who have received offers of between half a per cent and 15 per cent of their original claim. While many are reluctant to speak out while their claims are still being processed, The Sunday Times has been told of one former subpostmistress who has been offered just 0.56 per cent of what she believed she was entitled to. Linnell, 70, has been fighting alongside Sir Alan Bates for 12 years to secure justice for hundreds of subpostmasters who were wrongly fired and prosecuted by the Post Office due to financial shortfalls in their branch accounts. Those shortfalls were found to be the fault of the Horizon IT system — yet the Post Office continued to prosecute victims even after it was alerted to potential problems. Linnell, who was appointed OBE in January for services to justice, worked with Bates's Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA) free of charge and was one of the figures portrayed in the ITV drama series Mr Bates vs the Post Office. She became involved through her business partner, Barbara Jeremiah, who got to know Jo Hamilton, one of the most high-profile victims, because she bought lunch at her Post Office in their small Hampshire village every day on her way to work. More recently, Linnell has been helping with compensation claims for the 555 subpostmasters who secured a High Court ruling against the Post Office in 2019. They are eligible for compensation via the group litigation order (GLO) scheme, which is one of four schemes being administered by the Department for Business and Trade. Claimants can opt for a fixed sum of £75,000 or to seek an individual settlement of their losses, likely to require a higher payout. The claims are initially assessed by the business department but if there are disputes the cases can be referred to an independent panel for review and ultimately to the independent reviewer, who is a retired High Court judge. As of March, 282 of the 446 claims made had been paid, although 155 of those settled accepted the £75,000 fixed payment. However, growing numbers of subpostmasters believe the scheme is denying them the compensation they deserve. Last month, Bates said the government had turned it into a 'quasi kangaroo court', and assurances that the scheme would be 'non-legalistic' had turned out to be 'worthless'. Officials have been demanding documents from claimants that many had lost years ago. Bates also revealed he had been presented with a 'take it or leave it' offer amounting to less than half his original claim. Linnell said she had been contacted by about 45 to 50 claimants whose offers appeared to be 'substantially undervalued'. She added about 30 of those had received offers worth less than one sixth of their claim, adding these were the cases 'I get most upset about'. Linnell said that 'when you boil down the patheticness of the offers', they were the result of the scheme administrators putting a much lower value on the loss of investments that subpostmasters suffered when they were forced to sell assets to cover their account shortfalls. She added that a similar approach was being taken towards loss of future earnings — the amount subpostmasters should be compensated for losing their livelihoods. Linnell cited the case of one subpostmistress who has been offered 0.56 per cent of her claim. While the woman wishes to remain anonymous, she became a victim of the Horizon scandal shortly after purchasing a small Post Office branch that had generated low profits under the previous owner. She took out a substantial bank loan to add a café and shop. However, when the branch reopened after renovations, she was unable to pay suppliers because the Post Office had taken funds to recoup shortfall losses that were, in fact, the result of Horizon. This forced her to close the branch just six weeks later, at which point the bank demanded full repayment of her loan. The former subpostmistress contacted Linnell when putting together her compensation claim. 'Her claim had gone through all the checks Alan and I agreed should be in place, before the department started moving the goalposts,' Linnell said. 'It came back with an offer that was so pathetic.' Linnell said the dispute arose because the officials assessing her claim did 'not accept her trading and profit forecasts'. Instead, they cited the previous owner's revenue streams, despite the fact that the investments made by the subpostmistress would have meant that the business probably would have generated higher returns in future. 'I've gone back to her lawyers and suggested they submit the business plan that the bank happily accepted when issuing the loan,' Linnell said. Linnell, like Bates, believes the GLO scheme has become overly bureaucratic and legalistic, pointing out that three law firms are involved in the process. 'This is a pro bono scheme, it doesn't need to be following strict legal principles,' she said. She also believes that despite promises made by ministers, the officials involved in the schemes are attempting to reduce the total amount paid out in compensation. Labour has set aside £1.8 billion to settle claims. Linnell added: 'They are finding every legal loophole they can think of, under civil litigation rules, not to pay. It's designed to fail. What they are trying to do is to keep a handle on cashflow.' The government disputes this characterisation. A Department for Business and Trade spokesman said: 'We recognise the suffering that sub-postmasters have endured, which is why this government developed our compensation arrangement in discussion with Sir Alan Bates as well as Dr Kay Linnell and their lawyers, with £964 million having now been paid to over 6,800 claimants across all the Horizon schemes. 'Victims who are unhappy with their offer have access to legal support and an independent panel to review their claim.'
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
No more leprechaun economics: Ireland's tax swindle is finally ending
Donald Trump has sent Ireland to the naughty step. Once the altar boy of American commerce, Dublin now finds itself blacklisted alongside China, Germany and Vietnam, each a prime candidate for tariffs and sanctions. The offence? Running a surplus with the United States. On the face of it, the complaint seems petty. One country sells more than it buys. So what? But Ireland's problem, like the others on Trump's list, is that its surplus rests on a creed that has fallen out of favour. As offshoring hollowed out Middle America, the old Clinton mantra 'It's the economy, stupid' has begun to sound rather less clever than it once did. That, at least, is the mood in Trump's Washington. And judging by his campaign-trail fixation with the word tariff, many Americans agree: a reckoning is overdue. Ireland offers a particularly inviting target. Its surplus owes less to tangible exports than to tax gymnastics. A pill is made in Ireland for 50 cents, sold to a sister company (also in Ireland) for €10, and then shipped to the global market at the same price. The profit is booked in Dublin, while tax collectors elsewhere are left out of pocket. The trick doesn't stop there. Intellectual property is shifted to Irish subsidiaries, global sales are routed through Irish entities, and profits vanish into low or no-tax jurisdictions. Together, these sleights of hand form what we're invited to call the Irish economic miracle – a miracle that, by one estimate, deprives other countries of nearly $20 billion a year in tax revenue. The question being asked in Washington is: who benefits? Ireland, clearly. One in every eight euros of its tax revenue now comes from US firms. That's a fivefold increase since 2010, driven by Ireland's famously 'competitive' tax regime. It accounts for a large slice of a €150 billion bilateral surplus. When Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin visited the Oval Office in March, Trump put it plainly: 'We do have a massive deficit with Ireland, because Ireland was very smart. They took our pharmaceutical companies away.' It's hard to argue with the logic. Ireland has been undeniably clever at attracting American capital. Spending it is another matter. Much of the money sits on Irish books without generating the economic activity one might expect. The state's coffers may be overflowing, but the windfall is narrowly concentrated. Public spending, as ever, has been handled with something shy of brilliance. From roads and hospitals to housing and energy, the services most visible to the public have seen little improvement, despite years of surging revenues. Meanwhile, resources have been channelled into more headline-friendly ventures: a €350,000 bike shed outside parliament; a vast new hospital project already among Europe's most expensive; and billions annually to accommodate asylum applicants – most of whom, the government has conceded, are economic migrants. The miracle, it seems, left little room for prudence. As every lottery winner learns, easy money tends to breed excess. But with full coffers, Ireland could afford to paper over the cracks. Meanwhile, American tech and pharma giants have flourished. Apple, Microsoft, Pfizer and others have routed billions through Ireland, to the delight of shareholders and pension funds. If Trump moves to close loopholes or impose tariffs, these are the interests he'll have to console ahead of the midterms. The losers, predictably, are the American workers left behind by the long, slow flight of industry and tax revenue. Worse off still are the countries quietly drained by Ireland's magic act. The sums involved are vast. The structures that move them are so complex they can feel impossibly abstract. But the consequences are not. According to modelling by the Universities of St Andrews and Leicester, this tax loss has deprived more than 100,000 children of school attendance and some 1.1 million people of access to basic sanitation. Quibble with the methods if you like, but the core truth is hard to deny: when profits are rerouted, people are short-changed. Not that Dublin seems overly troubled. Only last month, Ireland's Taoiseach declared: 'Ireland earns its living from an open and fair approach to world trade.' The most pious nations often turn out to be the most artful. Ireland rarely misses a chance to sermonise on Gaza, climate justice, or whichever cause currently allows it to cast itself as Europe's moral compass. But as La Rochefoucauld noted, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. And by that measure, Ireland has paid handsomely.
