Electricity Supply Board v. Harrington [2002] IESC 38 (9 May 2002)

Electricity Supply Board v. Harrington [2002] IESC 38 (9 May 2002)

The defendants did not consent to the wayleave notice, triggering s. 53(5) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927 as amended, which entitles the plaintiff to enter and place the line subject only to compensation. The plaintiff's policy does not confer a right to a hearing before the Board itself, and any hearing required by policy may be satisfied by prior communications with officials. The statutory right to compensation is adequate, and the balance of convenience favours the plaintiff. The appeal is dismissed and the interlocutory injunction remains extant.

Citation
[2002] IESC 38
Parties
Plaintiff: Electricity Supply Board; First Defendant/owner: Mary Harrington; Second Defendant/occupier: Brian Harrington
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Order of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Statutory Powers of Entry, Wayleave Notices, Legitimate Expectation, Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition
Administrative Law Property Law Equity Interlocutory Injunctions Statutory Powers of Entry Wayleave Notices Legitimate Expectation Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Electricity Supply Board

Plaintiff

Mary Harrington

First Defendant/owner

Brian Harrington

Second Defendant/occupier

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Order of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to a hearing by the Board regarding the placement of an electricity line after refusal of consent to a wayleave notice.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing entry onto the land under s. 53 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927 as amended.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants have a legitimate expectation to a hearing based on the plaintiff's stated policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not consent to the wayleave notice, triggering s. 53(5) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927 as amended, which entitles the plaintiff to enter and place the line subject only to compensation. The plaintiff's policy does not confer a right to a hearing before the Board itself, and any hearing required by policy may be satisfied by prior communications with officials. The statutory right to compensation is adequate, and the balance of convenience favours the plaintiff. The appeal is dismissed and the interlocutory injunction remains extant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction ordered by the High Court remains extant.