Latest news with #PeterOReilly
BreakingNews.ie
3 days ago
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
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.
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
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.
Washington Post
20-05-2025
- Sport
- Washington Post
NFL owners unanimously approve player participation in Olympic flag football for 2028
EAGAN, Minn. — NFL players in the past three Pro Bowls have had a taste of flag football under the new format for the all-star game. For a select few, the Olympics could be next. League owners have unanimously approved permission for players to participate in flag football for the 2028 Olympics. The vote at the spring meetings in Minnesota on Tuesday authorized the league to negotiate safety provisions and scheduling logistics with the NFL Players Association, the sport's international governing body and the relevant Olympic authorities before it becomes reality during the next Summer Games in Los Angeles. The excitement throughout the league and momentum in global growth of the game have made this a seemingly inevitable advancement. 'I think the world finally has an opportunity to see the greatest athletes in the world participate,' league executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent said. The 10-player Olympic rosters will be selected by the national committee for each country, with six teams each in separate tournaments for men and women. Only one player per NFL club would be allowed for each country. The game itself is a 5-on-5 competition on a 50-yard field. With the 2028 Olympics scheduled from July 14-30, the flag football gold medal game could practically be staged before teams report to training camp, a provision that NFL executive vice president of club business and league events Peter O'Reilly indicated has already received informal support. Tryout and training periods for the national teams would also fit in offseason quiet periods for NFL clubs, O'Reilly said. At least seven athletes have appeared in an NFL game and an Olympics in the same year, including safety Nate Ebner in 2016 (rugby) when he was with the New England Patriots and running back Herschel Walker in 1992 (bobsledding) when he was with the Eagles. The others were in track and field. 'I do believe you'll see the hands go up from those who are not just currently playing but those veterans, those individuals, who have not had the professional career they were looking to have or the professional experience,' Vincent said. Vikings wide receiver Justin Jefferson attended the news conference along with teammate Brian Asamoah, a backup linebacker and special teams ace whose parents were born in Ghana and could potentially play for his country of heritage. While Jefferson would provide some serious star power, players of his stature might not be willing to risk injury right before the season. He said he'd have to consider his participation, but as one of the league's global ambassadors for the sport he's a true champion of flag football. 'The Pro Bowl game was honestly way more fun,' he said. 'We felt like kids out there.' The flag football vote was a given. The hard part for league owners this week at the Omni Viking Lakes Hotel is determining the fate of the tush push. After tabling the issue seven weeks ago, a vote was expected on Wednesday on the proposal by the Green Bay Packers to prohibit the play popularized by the reigning Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles . To enact the ban, 24 of the 32 teams must approve. Commissioner Roger Goodell said last month he believes the owners will reach a consensus on the issue that involves both competitive integrity and player safety. The league released a revised proposal by the Packers on Monday that broadens the language to prohibit pushing, pulling, lifting or encircling a runner by any offensive player, not specific to quarterback assists. This would put the rule back where it was 20 years ago, when a previous such ban was lifted because of the difficulty of enforcement. Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie has been leading the defense of the play his team developed with the coinciding arrival of strong-legged quarterback Jalen Hurts in 2020. The NFL has no conclusive data supporting a connection between the tush push and an injury risk increase, as Lurie noted at the previous league meetings in Florida. The Buffalo Bills are also a frequent user and favor a ban for safety, though, as head coach Sean McDermott said after the vote was tabled. The tush push, which has also been dubbed the 'Brotherly Shove' in a catchy and clever twist on the Greek-to-English translation of Philadelphia, not only assigns a player to push the backside of the quarterback for extra power behind a tight nine-man line but sometimes involves a blocker on the end pivoting to try to pull the ball carrier past the marker. Health is only half of this debate, however. Entertainment is the other. While the Eagles have nearly perfected the play for fourth-and-1 or 1-yard line situations with well-chosen personnel and well-rehearsed precision , it looks more like rugby than football. The Packers have been among several teams voicing their distaste for the evolution of the traditional quarterback sneak into an all-out scrum. On the memo distributed by the NFL on Monday, the reasons cited for the proposal are player safety and pace of play. 'It was controversial when the forward pass came out,' Lurie said at the last league meetings. 'I think aestheticism is very subjective. I've never judged whether a play looks OK.' The NFL further increased its international presence by granting global marketing rights to the Buffalo Bills, Cincinnati Bengals and Tennessee Titans and bring all 32 teams into the 21-country program that was launched three years ago. The Bills and Bengals were granted rights in Canada, where four other clubs have already been operating outreach efforts. The Titans got Ireland, where five other teams were previously granted rights. The clubs approved a couple of minor ownership changes, with Pro Football Hall of Fame member Charles Woodson buying a piece of the Cleveland Browns as a limited partner and three Bay Area families acquiring non-controlling minority shares of the San Francisco 49ers. ___ AP NFL:
