The High Court yesterday ruled that four people, who own most of the Great Blasket island and who last year successfully challenged the constitutionality of legislation aimed at compulsorily purchasing their property with a view to making the island a national park, were not entitled to damages from the State.
A year ago, the Supreme Court upheld a High Court finding that the 1989 Blascaod Mor National Historic Park Act was unconstitutional. The issue of damages was deferred.
The plaintiffs in the case are Mr Peter Callery, a solicitor, of Dingle, Co Kerry; his brother Mr James Callery, of Cloonahee House, Elphin, Co Roscommon; Ms Kay Brooks, the widow of a former US diplomat; and Mr Matthias Jaunch, Mercier Park, Turners Cross, Cork. They sued the Commissioners of Public Works, the Minister for the Gaeltacht, Ireland and the Attorney General.
While they were unsuccessful in their claim for damages yesterday, the plaintiffs were allowed the costs of the six-day hearing.
Giving his reserved judgment, Mr Justice Budd said: "It seems to me that the appropriate redress in this type of case is a declaration of invalidity. In the circumstances of this case, redress should not extend to damages."
The judge said he had concluded that there were a number of imponderables in respect of the heads of damage and there was a lack of the type of direct causal link necessary. The plaintiffs had never been dispossessed of their property and the publicity arising from the litigation might well have made the culture of the Great Blasket even more well known.
He found the court had jurisdiction to declare an Act invalid and to give necessary and appropriate redress "only for such damage as is proved to have flowed directly from the effects of the invalidity without intervening imponderables and events".
The plaintiffs had argued that where an unconstitutional Act had caused loss or damages, particularly to a very restricted category of plaintiffs, there was an obligation to compensate the victims and the measure of their compensation was the extent of the loss suffered.
Mr Justice Budd, in a 40-page judgment, said in the present case it seemed the plaintiffs had largely been vindicated by the declaration of invalidity of the 1989 Act.
The informed public was aware of their stance and their vindication by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as to the unjustified discrimination against them and the infringement of their constitutional rights.
While he did not accept that the Oireachtas had total immunity in respect of legislation, since the courts were specifically given the mandate to review legislation for repugnancy, nevertheless for public policy reasons it seemed to him that there must be considerable tolerance of the legislature, particularly when it had to weigh in the balance conflicting rights.