The High Court has rejected Kildare County Council’s claim that a forecourt on Corban’s Lane in Naas was a public road, finding that the council had not proved a public right of way over the disputed area. It declared that the area had been owned and used by Kieran Morrin and his predecessors before its compulsory purchase. The court dismissed Mr Morrin’s claim for slander of title damages.
The case arose from the council’s 2012 notice to treat for two plots acquired under the Naas Town Council Compulsory Purchase Order for the Corban’s Lane and Friary Road improvement scheme. The dispute concerned whether the forecourt at Mr Morrin’s properties, 2 and 3 Dara Court, formed part of the public road and whether he was entitled to compensation for its acquisition. The council sought declarations that a public right of way existed over the whole of plot 106a.202. Mr Morrin denied that, saying the area had been used for parking by him, tenants and customers.
After considering the evidence, Mr Justice McDermott found that Corban’s Lane had been taken in charge before 1978, but that the forecourt parking area was not included. The court was also not satisfied that the area had become a public right of way before 1991.
A footpath built on the opposite side of the lane in 1991 pushed traffic towards Mr Morrin’s property. The judge found that vehicles thereafter crossed the forecourt, but that the owners continued to exercise control over it and permitted parking by tenants and customers. The court concluded that traffic moving onto the land because of the footpath did not amount to the owners dedicating it as a public right of way. It found the council had not proved the right of way to the required standard and refused the declarations it sought.
On the counterclaim, the court granted Mr Morrin a declaration that the disputed area was in the ownership and use of him and his predecessors before compulsory purchase. It dismissed his claim for damages for slander of title. The judge found no evidence that the council had acted maliciously, and was not satisfied that Mr Morrin had established special damage or that the publication was likely to cause financial loss.
The judgment did not determine the compensation payable for the acquired land. That issue had been referred to a property arbitrator, and the court’s ruling addressed the disputed road status and the claims before it.