The High Court indicated it was willing in principle to let Rossmore Properties Limited replace its statement of claim against the Electricity Supply Board (ESB), provided Rossmore accepts responsibility for the ESB’s additional costs caused by the amendment. The court did not finally grant the amendment in this ruling, and left open further orders after counsel had considered the decision.
The dispute concerns lands acquired by Rossmore in 1999 at Moorestown, Celbridge, Co. Kildare, crossed by a 110KV electrical line. Rossmore says the line restricted development after it obtained planning permission in May 2006, and that the ESB led it to believe compensation would be paid. The ESB describes its role as giving safety advice and says Rossmore was invited to submit a claim for consideration.
Rossmore pursued compensation through the statutory scheme and an arbitration began in November 2009. It ended in December that year after a jurisdictional issue arose. The property arbitrator later explained that he considered he lacked jurisdiction because no wayleave notice had been served on Rossmore. Rossmore says it was subsequently billed €451,590.17 for the aborted hearing.
The proposed pleading would focus on claims including legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, and seek relief connected to a separate, non-statutory compensation code agreed between the ESB and the Irish Farmers Association. It also pleads alternative claims and requests declarations about compensation routes. These remain Rossmore’s claims, not findings by the court.
The ESB argued the amendment would introduce claims that appeared statute-barred and would cause logistical prejudice because of its timing and scale. The judge said the limitations questions were not straightforward or obvious at this stage. If the amendment proceeds, the ESB may still raise limitation arguments at trial or seek a preliminary determination. The court also allowed for the ESB to make Calderbank-type proposals within 21 days after service of an amended claim; if accepted, costs entitlement would run only to 29 October 2013.
The judge said the amendment addressed the original grievance in a more focused way and could be allowed without injustice if the costs condition was met. Counsel were given an opportunity to consider the ruling and any further orders required.