The High Court has ruled that €66,000 paid to farmer Kenneth Payne for cooperating with construction of an overhead electricity line must not be deducted from any compensation assessed for the line’s impact on his land.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore delivered the judgment on 16 July 2021 in a case stated by property arbitrator Desmond Boyle. The judge answered a narrow question about whether the earlier payments should count against a future compensation award. He did not assess the compensation due to Mr Payne.
The Electricity Supply Board served a wayleave notice on Mr Payne in June 2014, stating its intention to place an electric line across his lands in Kinnegad, County Westmeath. On the same day, Atkins Consulting Engineers, writing on behalf of EirGrid, offered “flexibility of access payments”. EirGrid paid Mr Payne €66,000 in instalments between March 2015 and August 2017. The ESB maintained that the payments were made on its behalf.
Mr Payne pursued statutory compensation under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927. His claim changed during the proceedings: an earlier claim subtotalled €640,500, while his September 2017 statement of claim sought €400,660, plus professional costs and expenses. The ESB argued that the €66,000 already paid should be taken into account.
Justice O’Moore found that the 2014 letter described the payments as recognition for cooperation with construction and as a way to improve the project’s efficiency. Payments depended on access being facilitated and work proceeding without unreasonable delay. The letter did not say the money was compensation, an advance against compensation, or deductible from a later award. The judge concluded that the payments were intended to secure cooperation, rather than compensate for losses caused by the exercise of statutory powers.
The judge rejected Mr Payne’s submission that the court should not answer the question because it lacked a sufficient factual basis. He said the arbitrator could address, if necessary, whether EirGrid had made the payments on behalf of the ESB. That issue did not prevent the court from deciding the question referred to it.
The court answered that the €66,000 “is not to be taken into account” by the arbitrator when assessing compensation. It did not determine the final compensation amount or resolve the outstanding question about whether EirGrid paid on the ESB’s behalf. The matter was listed for mention on 27 July 2021 to hear submissions on issues arising from the judgment, including costs.