THE Dublin businessman, Mr Harry Crosbie, yesterday lost his High Court action seeking the return of six acres of land in the Dublin docks area.
Mr Crosbie claimed the land should have been returned to him once the Government backed project for a national sports centre had been abandoned and he had repaid the £3.85 million he received for the land.
He had brought an action against the Docks Development Authority and the State. Mr Crosbie objected to a compulsory purchase order being made based on a claim that he had entered into an agreement with Trinity College Dublin to jointly develop the land as a "science technology park".
His lawyers had argued that if land was compulsorily acquired for a particular purpose and if that purpose was abandoned then it must be implied into the urban renewal legislation that the authority was obliged to offer its return.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, said the evidence established the Docks Authority had decided to make a compulsory purchase order (CPO) "for the purposes" of the Urban Renewal Acts.
At the time of the CPO, the authority intended "the purpose" was the building of a national sports centre. The authority did not choose to limit "the purpose" of acquisition to a particular proposed development.
Mr Justice Costello planning schemes might be amended, and proposals for development made before a scheme was adopted might be changed. The Dock Authority's decision was that it would acquire the lands for its general statutory purposes and not for the particular development (the sports centre).
Mr Crosbie had argued that because it was a function of the Minister for the Environment, when deciding whether or not to confirm a CPO, to weigh up the worth of developments proposed by the Dock Authority and that by an objecting landowner, it must follow the specific development proposed for which the land was sought to be acquired.
This view of the Minister's functions was not correct, said Mr Justice Costello. The Minister when deciding whether or not to confirm a CPO did not decide the public good to be achieved by confirming that the CPO should prevail over property rights.
Mr Crosbie's counsel asked for costs, claiming the issues in the case were complex and the judgment clarified the law in relation to urban renewal legislation and compulsory acquisition orders.
Mr Justice Costello awarded the Docks Authority and the State costs.