The Gazette 1967/71

notice had stated that lateral support should be provided during the carrying out of demolition work; this, in his opinion, would constitute a condition within sub-section 3. The substance of the dispute was whether the Act authorised the corporation to require the Plaintiff to shore up the adjoining structure after her premises had been demolished. The Court held that the corporation erred in requiring the Plaintiff to provide per manent lateral support for the adjoining structure. These should be prevented from being dangerous but whatever the rights, inter se, of the Plaintiff and the owners of adjoining premises, the corporation's powers to prevent these premises from being dangerous structures were exercisable only against their owners. The Court dismissed with costs the appeal of the Dublin Corporation against Mrs. Una McGuinness, owner of 125/126, The Coombe, Dublin. The Dual Purpose Official Plaintiffs were public assistant officials of the Tipperary (South Riding) County Coun cil. They claimed that under the terms of their employment they held, or were entitled to hold, in addition to these offices the office of cottage rent collector for their respective districts, and they asked for certain declara tions and reliefs. The defence in each case was a denial that the appointments contained any such term or condition as the Plaintiffs alleged; that if such a term or condition was contained, it was ultra vires the Council as having been made without the appropriate Ministerial sanction or consent; and such consent was likewise ultra vires. In the course of his judgment Mr. Justice Butler said: "The primary aim of Local Government Acts and particularly the more modern Acts is to en able the Local Authorities to function efficiently in the complex business of admin istering Local Government in their area and carrying out their functions while vesting in the Minister powers of supervision, control and intervention to insure efficiency and economy, fairness in the local administration and overall government policy. Subject to allowing the Minister these powers, the statutes should, in my opinion, be construed liberally so as to enable normal and adminis trative executive decisions to be made and acts performed without the Council being held in leading strings by the Department." 67

make it available for inspection; must re ceive and consider objections and representa tions, and must afford an objecting ratepayer the opportunity of stating his case. If any amendment were made in the draft, which was a material alteration of the draft pro posals, notice of such amendment must similarly be given and like opportunities afforded. Apart from this procedure, no power of amending the draft was conferred on the planning authority and, I think neces sarily and designedly so. (Mrs. Anne Teresa Finn v. Bray Urban Council—9/12/1967). Lateral Support for Adjoining Premises In a reserved judgment delivered on 7th December, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that a local authority cannot require the owner of a premises demolished on foot of the authority's order to provide permanent lateral support for adjoining premises. The question before the Court arose out of the correct construction of Section 3 (1) of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1964. The sub-section authorised a sanitary authority to serve a notice on the owner of a dangerous structure requiring the owner to carry out such works, including demolition in part or whole, specified in the notice "as will, in the opinion of the sanitary authority, prevent the structure from being a dangerous structure." The premises involved formed part of a terrace. On June 10th, 1965, the corporation served a notice on the Plaintiff ordering her to take down the structure and provide lateral support to adjoining structures. She failed to comply with this and in December, 1965. a District Justice ordered her to com ply with the notice. On appeal, the order of the District Justice was affirmed, she then appealed to the High Court. The President of the High Court held that neither the District Court nor the Circuit Court, on appeal were empowered to review the opinion of the sanitary authority either that a structure was dangerous or as to the steps to be taken to deal with it. An owner brought before the Court by the sanitary authority could there fore ask for nothing except that he should be allowed another chance to carry out the work specified in the notice. There was no appeal provision. The Chief Justice (delivering the judg ment of the Court) said that the corporation's