The Supreme Court has allowed Peter and Rose O’Reilly’s appeal in part over compensation for electricity lines crossing their land at Crubany, Co Cavan. It held that compensation under section 53 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 can include depreciation in the value of the entire holding crossed by a line, not just the strip directly beneath it. The amount is for a Property Arbitrator to determine afresh.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Brian Murray on 5 June 2025, arose from ESB wayleave notices served in February 2011 for a 110 kV line across two holdings. One was jointly owned by the O’Reillys and the other by Peter O’Reilly. The line was installed that year. ESB had paid them €33,000 under landowner agreements, but the parties accepted that sum would not be counted in assessing statutory compensation.
The O’Reillys later claimed compensation for the wayleaves and related losses, including reduced land and house-site values. A Property Arbitrator awarded €19,500 for one wayleave and €20,000 for the other. The High Court ruled that compensation could not cover depreciation to land beyond the area occupied by the line and supports, and also found the Arbitrator had wrongly included the effect of possible future ESB access for maintenance.
The Supreme Court rejected ESB’s argument that compensation was confined to the land directly occupied. It held that the statutory term “compensation” presumptively reflects the loss in value of the holding burdened by the line and supports. The Court said the relevant property is the entire holding crossed by the line, not other land the claimant may own. The Arbitrator must decide what land forms the subject property and assess any resulting loss in value.
The Court also held that section 53(9) compensation for ESB’s right to enter land arises only if and when that power is exercised. The Arbitrator therefore erred by accounting in advance for potential future access, and that part of the O’Reillys’ appeal was dismissed.
ESB’s cross-appeal concerned the admission of additional claim details shortly before the arbitration hearing and alleged unfairness. The Supreme Court dismissed it, agreeing that the Arbitrator could admit the new particulars. ESB could have sought an adjournment or made a revised offer but did neither.
The Court allowed the O’Reillys’ appeal only on the scope of compensation for depreciation. It directed that compensation be determined de novo by the Arbitrator, who is to have regard to the judgment and the valuation approach developed in UK cases.