The High Court has struck the Minister for Transport from a claim brought by three former landowners over planning objections concerning land beside Dublin Airport.
Mr Justice Brian McGovern’s ruling on 17 April 2008 dealt with a preliminary issue under section 58 of the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998. The question was whether the plaintiffs’ claims could be brought or maintained against the Minister. The court did not decide the underlying allegations or the plaintiffs’ claimed loss.
The plaintiffs are Anne Donegan, Lucy Donegan and Anne O’Malley. They formerly owned 38.5 hectares at Harristown, County Dublin, adjoining the airport’s southern boundary. They alleged that four applications for commercial development, made between 1990 and 1995 by them or their predecessors in title, were refused after objections to An Bord Pleanála by the Minister and Aer Rianta. The objections related principally to airport planning, the land’s location in relation to runways and safety.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Minister made misrepresentations through objections submitted by Aer Rianta acting as his agent. They said they believed further objections would prevent development, so they sold the land to Monaer (Cork) Ltd. They also alleged that Aer Rianta and Dunloe Ewart later entered a joint venture to develop part of it for warehousing and related works, and that planning permission was eventually granted. They claimed loss and damage. The judgment records that conspiracy allegations were made against Aer Rianta and Dunloe Ewart, but not against the Minister.
The Minister argued that section 58 required claims arising from the pre-1999 performance of functions assigned to Aer Rianta to lie against the company, not the Minister. The plaintiffs argued that their case concerned wrongful conduct by the Minister in discharging his policy remit, with Aer Rianta allegedly asserting policy objections that did not exist. For the preliminary issue, the judge accepted that the pleaded allegations had to be taken as true; he made no finding that they were true.
The judge concluded that the case against the Minister was not distinguishable from the case against Aer Rianta, and that section 58 barred maintaining the claims against the Minister. He said removing the Minister would not prejudice or compromise the plaintiffs’ claim. The order was to strike the first-named defendant, the Minister for Transport, from the proceedings. The ruling resolved only that preliminary issue; it did not determine liability or the remaining claims.