The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the representatives of Terence Chadwick, deceased, and Sheelagh Davis-Goff in a dispute with Fingal County Council over compensation connected to the Northern Motorway scheme. The Court confirmed the High Court order, holding that compensation for injurious affection under section 63 was limited to damage attributable to activities on land taken from the claimants.
In a judgment delivered by Kearns J. on 6 November 2007, the Court followed the approach in Edwards v Minister of Transport. That approach excludes compensation for effects caused by activities on off-site lands that were never owned by the claimant. Kearns J. said a claim for statutory compensation must rest on clear statutory authority, and rejected the claimants’ argument that the full depreciation of their property should be compensated because of the motorway scheme.
The claimants relied chiefly on the Australian High Court’s decision in Marshall v Director General. Kearns J. considered that decision unpersuasive, saying it departed from Edwards without giving a clear or cogent reason. He acknowledged that the Australian statute used different wording, referring to damage caused by “the exercise of any statutory powers”, but considered that distinction separate from the question of which lands could be considered when assessing compensation for compulsory acquisition.
The judgment also referred to the High Court’s consideration of equality under Article 40.1 of the Constitution. O’Neill J. had reasoned that allowing the claimants to recover for the entire depreciation caused by the scheme could treat them more favourably than neighbours whose land was not taken, even if those neighbours suffered similar or greater effects. Kearns J. endorsed that reasoning as supporting an interpretation that avoided an unjustifiable inequality.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the High Court judge’s order. The judgment does not state the amount of compensation at issue or set out any further order.