The Supreme Court allowed Thomas Reid’s appeal and set aside the Industrial Development Agency’s decision to compulsorily acquire his 72-acre farm at Blakestown, Maynooth, County Kildare. The Court held that the IDA could not use its statutory powers to acquire land for possible future use where no particular industrial undertaking had been identified, and that it had not met the statutory preconditions for compulsory acquisition.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice William McKechnie on 5 November 2015, concerned an IDA decision made in November 2012. Reid had challenged the decision in judicial review proceedings after the IDA sought to acquire his family’s farm, including the protected structure known as Hedsor House. The High Court rejected his claims in 2013.
Under section 16 of the Industrial Development Act 1986, the IDA could acquire land for industrial purposes if it considered that industrial development would or was likely to occur and was satisfied that the intended undertaking would meet specified statutory criteria. The Supreme Court found that the IDA had no particular undertaking in mind when it made the acquisition order. The evidence instead showed that the land was being acquired so it would be available if a future investor sought it.
The Court held that section 16 did not authorise compulsory acquisition for such future use. It contrasted that provision with planning legislation that expressly allows certain acquisitions for future purposes and sets conditions for doing so. The Court concluded that the IDA’s order was beyond its statutory powers.
It also held that the IDA could not satisfy section 16’s statutory criteria without knowing the identity of the intended undertaking and assessing whether that undertaking met them. The Court therefore found the preconditions for exercising the compulsory powers had not been met.
The Court separately upheld Reid’s objective-bias challenge. The IDA chair, Liam O’Mahony, was also a non-executive director of PM Group, whose site-selection report was among the material considered by the IDA board. The Court concluded that a reasonably informed observer could apprehend that the chair’s connection might affect the weight given to the report. It said this ground also supported setting aside the decision.
Having decided the appeal on those grounds, the Court did not determine Reid’s other challenges concerning reasons or fair procedures, or the constitutional and European Convention issues. Its observations about the desirability of independent involvement in compulsory purchase decisions were expressly obiter. The judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the IDA’s decision; it did not decide compensation or authorize a new acquisition.