The Supreme Court is to decide whether a woman can get back €50,000 she paid under the derelict sites levy which had been incurred by the previous owner of a property she bought.
Michelle Maher bought the East Wall, Dublin, property in 2014 for €176,600 from a bank that had called in a mortgage it granted to the previous owner.
In 2015, Dublin City Council demanded payment from her of an outstanding €50,153 derelict sites levy which had been imposed in 2008 by the local authority on the land when it was owned by the previous owner.
Ms Maher decided to pay the levy under protest after an exchange of correspondence between her solicitors and the council’s lawyers. Some €18,500 related to the levy itself while the remainder, €31,500, consisted of 1.25 per cent penalty interest per month.
Ms Maher subsequently brought a High Court appeal over the Circuit Court’s dismissal of her case in which she sought recovery of the money.
Last July, the High Court ruled she was not liable to pay the €50,000.
Due to the issue of general public importance in this case and the question of statutory interpretation of potentially broad application, the Supreme Court granted leave for a further appeal to it. The appeal will be heard later.
A stay has been placed on repayment of the money pending the Supreme Court determination.
The city council, in seeking an appeal to the Supreme Court, argued the practical consequence of the repayment decision was that derelict site charges will not, in many instances, be capable of being collected.
This is especially so because many sales may not realise sufficient funds to discharge the outstanding debt on the property.
The issue of whether a levy imposed on a site is carried over to the new buyer, or “overreached” is of general public importance to local authorities throughout the State and may have the effect of depriving them of a source of funding, it was argued.
There was also the fact that the deterrent effect of a derelict sites order will be diminished as a result of the decision that the €50,000 be repaid, it said.
Ms Maher opposed a further appeal. She argued the issue ought to have been dealt with by a case having been stated to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the findings of a case from 2000.
She also argued that the matter could be addressed by amending legislation if necessary. No exceptional circumstances had been shown here that would justify a further appeal, it was argued.