The owners of most of the Great Blasket island, who successfully challenged legislation aimed at compulsorily purchasing the island from them and developing it as a national park, have taken a High Court action seeking damages from the State. They claim the Act rendered it impossible to either develop or sell the island.
But Mr George Brady SC, for the State, yesterday argued the court had no power to award damages against his client.
The Supreme Court more than a year ago upheld a High Court finding that the 1989 Blascaoid Mor National Parks Act was unconstitutional.
The Act enabled the island to be compulsorily purchased for development as a national park but its constitutionality was successfully challenged by the widow of a former US diplomat, two brothers and a German academic who between them own 68 per cent of the island.
The four plaintiffs are: Mr Peter Callery, a solicitor from Dingle, Co Kerry; his brother, James, of Cloonahee House, Elphin, Co Roscommon; Mrs Kay Brooks, widow of a former US diplomat; and Mr Matthias Jaunch, of Mercier Park, Turners Cross, Cork.
In court yesterday Dr Michael Forde SC, for the owners, told Mr Justice Budd there was no law preventing a claim against the State for damages where an Act had been found unconstitutional.
If they did not succeed on that claim, they would argue they were entitled to damages because the 1989 Act had been in breach of EC legislation.
Dr Forde said the State would argue that if this had been a claim arising out of the actions of a police officer or other such State functionary, then the four owners could be entitled to damages but, where the Act was enacted by the legislature, then they would not be entitled to damages.
It had been agreed that the amount of damages would not be decided until the court had given its decision on the question of liability, Dr Forde said.
The four also claimed that realistically they would do nothing to improve the island because they had expropriation hanging over them. They would also argue that, but for the Act, they would have done certain works on the island. Because those works were not done there had been deterioration to a far greater extent than if they had been left to do such works in 1989.
Dr Forde said his clients would also have applied for a variety of EC grants but for the legislation. The State had never taken up his clients' offer of co-operation with whatever project was put forward to improve the island.
Mr Brady said he believed the question was whether there was liability and if so what the parameters of that liability were. As the law stood, the court had no power to award damages against the State.
The second question was whether the minister involved, Mr Charles Haughey, had been guilty of a wrongful exercise of authority in public office in procuring the passing of the Act. He believed that, as this was a claim only recently made on behalf of the four owners, it must fail because it was statute-barred (it had not been brought within six years of the passing of the Act).
The hearing is expected to last several days.