The High Court ruled that an Electricity Supply Board (ESB) letter offering compensation and specified costs to landowner Timothy McCarthy was an unconditional offer under section 5(1) of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore answered a question referred by property arbitrator Mr Boyle in the affirmative. The court considered the legal status of the ESB’s letter of 21 June 2017, not the amount of compensation due or the ultimate allocation of arbitration costs.
The dispute followed an ESB wayleave notice served on Mr McCarthy in March 2016 under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927. He claimed compensation and sought an arbitrator. In June 2017, the ESB offered a redacted sum in full and final settlement of the compensation claim, plus pre-reference costs, arbitration costs as directed by the arbitrator, and reasonable costs of taking advice on the offer. Mr McCarthy did not accept it.
The arbitrator later awarded Mr McCarthy €65,102.50 in compensation, less than the compensation sum in the ESB’s June offer. His original claim sought €707,000 before costs. The court noted that pre-reference costs had not been quantified or notified to the ESB before the offer, and that they were ordinarily assessed by the arbitrator after the compensation award.
Mr McCarthy challenged whether the June letter was unconditional. Among other arguments, his lawyers said the ESB could not make multiple valid offers, that the treatment of pre-reference costs created ambiguity, and that the letter left uncertainty about assessing costs and the arbitrator’s authority to do so.
Justice O’Moore rejected those objections. He held that the statute did not prevent an acquiring authority from making more than one unconditional offer. He read the June letter as offering the stated compensation sum with the listed costs payable in addition, and found that the arbitrator’s role in assessing pre-reference costs continued. The offer’s provision for arbitration costs also covered the hearing on those costs. The court held that uncertainty about what constituted reasonable advice costs did not make the offer conditional.
The judge expressly left undecided the ESB’s broader argument that a valid statutory offer need only specify an unconditional sum for compensation, without addressing costs. He answered the special-case question in the affirmative and directed that the matter be listed to deal with any outstanding issues. The ruling did not itself resolve those issues or determine the final costs payable.