Mayo County Council -v- McNicholas [2015] IECA 184 (29 July 2015)

Mayo County Council -v- McNicholas [2015] IECA 184 (29 July 2015)

The Council established a fair case to be tried that the defendant was not entitled to interfere with Council property or create an unauthorised access onto the N5, given the public safety concerns and the absence of statutory extinguishment of the public right of way. The balance of convenience favored the Council, and damages would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the interlocutory injunction was properly granted and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] IECA 184
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Mayo County Council; Defendant/appellant: Peter McNicholas
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Injunction Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutory injunction continued.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Order, Public Right of Way, Interlocutory Injunction, Roads Act 1993, Housing Act 1966, Planning and Development Act 2000
Administrative Law Property Law Planning and Development Law Compulsory Purchase Order Public Right of Way Interlocutory Injunction Roads Act 1993 Housing Act 1966 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayo County Council

Plaintiff/respondent

Peter McNicholas

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Injunction Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mayo County Council was entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from using an exit onto the N5 and interfering with Council property
  2. 2 Whether the Council properly extinguished the public right of way over the local road under statutory procedures
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's actions in removing the wall and creating access constituted unlawful interference with public property

Ratio Decidendi

The Council established a fair case to be tried that the defendant was not entitled to interfere with Council property or create an unauthorised access onto the N5, given the public safety concerns and the absence of statutory extinguishment of the public right of way. The balance of convenience favored the Council, and damages would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the interlocutory injunction was properly granted and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutory injunction continued.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from using the exit created onto the N5.
  • Defendant restrained from interfering with bollards preventing use of the exit.