A withering assessment of council's role in land deal

Judge Peter Kelly did not mince his words when it came to delivering his judgment in the extraordinary case of Meath County Council and Darlington Properties Limited (in receivership) in Dublin's Commercial Court last week. "This case arises out of bungling and ineptitude of a high order on the part of the defendant (the county council). Such shortcomings resulted in legal wrongs being done to the plaintiff (Darlington) for which it is entitled to redress," the judge added. It was, he said, "an extraordinary tale of error after error". And he went further - the council was "guilty of negligent misrepresentation and breach of duty of care to Darlington" in relation to a contract of May 2006 for purchase and development of a two-acre council-owned site at Ashbourne. For the record, it is worth repeating the facts. The council put the land up for sale by private treaty in 2006, stating in its sales brochure that an as-yet unconstructed road would connect the site to the centre of Ashbourne. Darlington bought the land for €4.51 million. The connecting road was never built and could never have been because the council had already granted planning permission for a development on the exact route of this road in 2005. The value of the land, including the new road, was €4.51 million in the 'boom' year of 2006. Without the road, the land was worth €2.3 million in 2006. Today, still without the new road, the two-acre site is worth €0.45 million. Having discovered that the construction of the new road was an impossibility, the company moved to protect the viability of its purchase and its plans and sought to persuade the council to allow changes to include more residential and less commercial use. It is incomprehensible that the council, knowing that the purchaser had been misled, refused to engage with the company in making the required changes. If the council had any hope of rescuing itself from its series of blunders, it then managed to bury itself in the rubble of its disastrous mistakes and either failed or refused to communicate with Darlington. There should be little wonder that Judge Kelly was trenchant in his criticism of the council, vividly illustrated in words like "not impressive", "unattractive", "so coy", "blundering" and "ostrich-like". The accusation that the council has been dishonourable in the matter should give senior officials pause for serious thought. The judge described a case "which, if dealt with honourably by the county council, might not have resulted in litigation at all". The judge finds as much fault with the council for defending the case in the courts, as for its actions in the initial advertising and sale of the property. The council knew it had made mistakes through this saga, yet pursued its defence of its actions in expensive litigation which, of course, will be paid for out of the public purse. The judge awarded €4 million against the council. Last Friday, the council summoned councillors to an "information meeting" in Navan to hear a briefing on the matter by its legal adviser. The members were told that a statement would be read on behalf of the council but senior officials would not be taking questions on the issue. To their credit, two councillors - Brian Fitzgerald and Joe Reilly - left the meeting in protest, saying that they would not go through such a "charade". Now it emerges that the council will not be appealing Judge Kelly's findings that it is liable to Darlington Properties but will instead go to the Supreme Court to appeal the size of the award against it, claiming that it should be €2.2 million. Judge Kelly's response to this has been to order the council to pay up €2.2 million to the company within seven days. The council says it will make no further comment until after the Supreme Court has made its decision. While it seeks to hide behind the sub judice rule where it is not usual to comment on matters that are awaiting judicial decision, the county council could be accused of engaging in further obfuscation and failure to face up to its actions. There has been a complete lack of transparency in this case and the new Minister for the Environment & Local Government should live up to the coalition's promise of a better way of public administration by conducting an inquiry into Meath County Council's role in this affair.