A High Court judge yesterday reserved judgment on an action for £2 million damages taken by two mining companies against Mayo County Council. The 15-day hearing opened on November 28th and ran until December 16th, when it was adjourned. It resumed on January 20th.
Closing submissions in the case concluded yesterday and Mr Justice Kelly reserved judgment.
Glencar Exploration Company and Andaman Resources are seeking £2 million in damages from Mayo County Council over the insertion of a mining ban in the County Development Plan which was formally approved in February 1992.
The ban, which had applied to one-seventh of the area of the county, was overturned by the High Court in December 1992. Both mining companies had licences to explore for minerals in the Carrickbawn area of Co Mayo. In 1991 the Council inserted in its draft development plan for the county a statement of policy that "no development and/or works shall take place in relation to minerals... in (specified) areas". In February 1992 the resolution was ratified by the Council.
Glencar and Andaman claim they are entitled to damages as a result of that resolution. They claim they had a legitimate expectation of planning permission for the development of a gold prospect in Co Mayo and that the Council's imposition of a ban on mining was negligent and a breach of the Council's statutory and constitutional duty. In the course of the hearing, Mr Hugh McCullough, chief executive of Glencar, said his company's shares had fallen from 32/33p before the ban to 8p afterwards. He said an Australian gold mining company, Newcrest, withdrew from joint venture negotiations on the development of the Co Mayo gold prospect after the ban.
The money spent on the exploration was "a write off", he said.
Mayo County Council, in submissions to the court, rejected the claim for damages.
The Council said it had never represented to the two mining companies that it would give planning permission for mining in the Carrickbawn area which was described as "outstandingly beautiful". It also stated it had never represented that there would never be planning restrictions on mining in that area.
The Council further said the only relevant expectation the companies could have, if they had sought planning permission for mining operations, was that they would get a fair hearing. The companies had never applied for planning permission.
The claim that the mining ban was a breach of the Council's statutory duty was also rejected. No particulars had been given relating to what statutory duties were allegedly contravened, Dr Michael Forde SC, with Mr James O'Reilly SC, for the Council, submitted.
The Council further rejected the claim of negligence and submitted that, even if there were negligence, in the sense of culpable inadvertence, the Council owed no duty of care to the mining companies.
