O'Brien v. Bord na Mona & Anor [1982] IESC 1; [1983] IR 255 (9 December 1982)

O'Brien v. Bord na Mona & Anor [1982] IESC 1; [1983] IR 255 (9 December 1982)

The Supreme Court held that the making of a compulsory acquisition order by Bord na Mona is an administrative, not a judicial, act. Therefore, the absence of an appeal or confirmation by an external authority does not render ss.29 and 30 of the Turf Development Act, 1946 unconstitutional, provided that the procedures followed are fair and subject to judicial review. However, in this case, Bord na Mona failed to communicate and consider the plaintiff's specific objection before making the acquisition decision, breaching natural and constitutional justice.

Citation
[1982] IESC 1
Parties
Plaintiff: Richard O'Brien; Defendant: Bord na Mona; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 December 1982
Procedural Posture
Constitutional and Administrative Law Challenge / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; High Court declaration of unconstitutionality set aside; declaration granted that Bord na Mona's acquisition procedure was void for breach of natural justice.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Natural Justice, Right to Property, Administrative Procedure, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Property Law Compulsory Acquisition Natural Justice Right to Property Administrative Procedure Judicial Review

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard O'Brien

Plaintiff

Bord na Mona

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional and Administrative Law Challenge / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss.29 and 30 of the Turf Development Act, 1946 are unconstitutional for violating Articles 40 and 43 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether Bord na Mona acted in breach of natural and constitutional justice in the compulsory acquisition process

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the making of a compulsory acquisition order by Bord na Mona is an administrative, not a judicial, act. Therefore, the absence of an appeal or confirmation by an external authority does not render ss.29 and 30 of the Turf Development Act, 1946 unconstitutional, provided that the procedures followed are fair and subject to judicial review. However, in this case, Bord na Mona failed to communicate and consider the plaintiff's specific objection before making the acquisition decision, breaching natural and constitutional justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; High Court declaration of unconstitutionality set aside; declaration granted that Bord na Mona's acquisition procedure was void for breach of natural justice.

Orders

  • Declaration that ss.29 and 30 of the Turf Development Act, 1946 are not unconstitutional.
  • Declaration that Bord na Mona's resolution to acquire the plaintiff's land is null and void for breach of natural justice.