DUBLIN businessman Mr Harry Crosbie yesterday brought a High Court action seeking the return of six acres of Dublin dockland following the abandonment of the Government backed national sports centre.
Mr Crosbie's action is against the Custom House Dock Development Authority and the State. The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, was told Mr Crosbie was paid almost £4 million for the land.
Mr Frank Clarke, SC, for Mr Crosbie, said if land was compulsorily acquired, primarily for a particular purpose, following a public inquiry, and that purpose was abandoned, then it must be implied into the relevant urban renewal legislation that the docks authority is obliged to offer to return the land on repayment of the £4 million.
Alternatively, if the court felt it could not imply such a term, then the statutory framework was unconstitutional because of the absence of such a provision.
Mr Clarke said it would appear to make a mockery of the elaborate proceedings for a public inquiry, if at the end of the day the land could be acquired ostensibly for one purpose and then, without any consideration, could be put forward for ordinary office development.
What gave rise to the dispute was the acquisition of Mr Crosbie's lands by the authority, primarily for the building of a national indoor sports centre. The authority, by reason of the Government's decision to locate the centre on Mr Crosbie's land, was acting as agent or trustee for the Minister for Education, the Minister responsible for sport.
Mr Clarke said the Minister for the Environment made an order to extend the authority's area effectively at the same time as the decision about the sports centre.
Mr Clarke said he hoped to satisfy the court there was at all times an extremely close connection between the decision to build and the ministerial order incorporating Mr Crosbie's site (together with other land making a total of 12 acres) into the authority's area.
It gave the authority the possibility of compulsorily purchasing those lands and a legitimate statutory role in that area - whether it acquired the lands or not.
At a public inquiry the substance of the authority's case was in favour of acquiring the land for the sports centre. Mr Crosbie was one of the objectors. For some years before, Mr Crosbie had been engaged in discussions with Trinity College, Dublin with a view to the joint development of a science and technology park on his lands.
Mr Crosbie would give evidence, said Mr Clarke, that while he did not agree with the Minister's decision he decided to make the best of matters and entered into an agreement, accepted a price for the land, and agreed to discontinue legal proceedings challenging the confirmation order.
In substance these lands were compulsorily acquired from Mr Crosbie clearly for the building of the sports centre.
The authority in its defence denies its case at the public inquiry was solely or substantially to the effect that the lands were required for a sports centre. The authority claims the sole reason it advanced was that the lands were required for redevelopment and renewal purposes.
The authority denies Mr Crosbie entered into an agreement because there was a compulsory purchase order or that the order gave him no option but to sell
The State in its defence pleads the Minister's confirmation of the compulsory purchase order was not restricted to, nor qualified by, any requirement that its use was limited to a sports centre. The acquisition of Mr Crosbie's lands was by way of private treaty sale and not the result of the compulsory purchase order.
The State denies powers of compulsory purchase conferred on the docks authority by the Urban Renewal Acts were an unjust attack on Mr Crosbie's property rights.
The hearing continues today.
