High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. This Action concerns a mid 19th century industrial warehouse comprising two inter connecting buildings of three storeys being part of a courtyard warehouse complex known as the Harper Campbell stores situate at Union Place, Sligo, ("the buildings").

2. For many years the Defendant has been concerned with facilities for traffic through Sligo and in the late 1960s commenced a process which led to the commissioning of a bridge over the Garavogue River and the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order for the completion of a project known as the Sligo Inner Relief Road which project envisages the demolition of the buildings. Ultimately the buildings were acquired by agreement, the purchase being completed on or about the 29th January, 1997. The Defendant's Borough Engineer Mr Seamus Corcoran carried out an inspection of the buildings in August, 1999 and in his opinion the same were dangerous and he recommended that they be demolished forthwith. The present condition of the buildings is such, according to the Defendant, that it has been required to close off Union Place to vehicular traffic.

3. The Plaintiff commissioned a structural appraisal of the buildings from Christopher Southgate and Associates dated 26th March, 2000. From this it appears that the buildings are in reasonable structural condition with the majority of structural details in good condition and are obviously stable and capable of being preserved and restored, but works are required to make them safe.

4. The Plaintiff applied for and obtained an interim injunction on the 24th March, 2000 whereby the Defendant was restrained from demolishing or altering significantly the character of the buildings.

5. The matter comes before me by way of an application for an interlocutory injunction in like terms to the interim injunction granted on the 24th March, 2000.

6. The Plaintiff claims that the buildings are a "heritage buildings" within the definition contained in the Heritage Act, 1995 Section 2 and that accordingly, before proceeding with the demolition of the buildings the Defendant is obliged to comply with the provisions of the Heritage Act, 1995 Section 10.

7. The Heritage Act, 1995 Section 2 contains a definition of heritage building as follows -

8. The Act in Section 5 establishes the Heritage Council ("the Council"). The function of the Council as set out in the Act in Section 6(1) -

9. Section 6(3) requires the Council to promote interest, education, knowledge and pride in and facilitate the appreciation and enjoyment of the national heritage and cooperate with public authorities, educational bodies and other organisations and persons in the promotion of the functions of the Council. Under Section 7 of the Act the Council may make recommendations to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Under Section 8 of the Act the Council must, if the Minister requests, furnish the Minister with advice on any matter relating to the functions of the Council.

10. Each of the separate elements of heritage mentioned in Section 6(1) is defined in Section 2 of the Act. Heritage building is not mentioned in Section 6(1) although clearly having regard to the definition of architectural heritage any heritage building would of necessity be included in architectural heritage. The definition of heritage building is required solely for the purposes of Section 10 of the Act.

11. Section 10 of the Act provides as follows -

12. The issue between the parties in this action is whether on the true construction of Section 10 the section applies to every heritage building as defined in Section 2 or only to a heritage building which is designated by the Minister as such pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Act.

13. I am satisfied that Section 10 is a discrete portion of the Act and should be read as such. Section 10(4) regulates the remainder of the section and accordingly, compliance with Section 10(2) of the Act only arises in respect of a heritage building which the Minister has designated by order. To construe the section as the Plaintiff contends would introduce such uncertainty into the affairs of the public authorities that this could not have been the intention of the legislature. Disputes would clearly rage as to whether a particular building is a heritage building or merely architectural heritage and undoubtedly much litigation would result. The Courts should seek to avoid a construction of an enactment that produces an unworkable or impractical result since this is unlikely to have been intended by the legislature; Bennion Statutory Interpretations Second Edition Section 313. I am satisfied that the construction contended for by the Plaintiff would lead to an unworkable and unpracticable result. Again, insofar as the section is ambiguous I should interpret the same in the way which causes the lesser interference with the vested rights of public authorities who would be affected by this section in relation to their own property - such property rights should not be taken away or impaired except under clear authority; Bennion Second Edition, Section 278. Accordingly, I find that the provisions of the Heritage Act, 1995 Section 10 apply only to a heritage building which has been designated by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht by order under Section 10(4) of the Act.

14. I am fortified in the correctness of this view by the statement contained in the explanatory memorandum prepared in connection with the Heritage Council Bill which deals with Section 10 in the following terms -

15. The Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief which he seeks.