An attempt to compel Carlow County Council to make a small section of land available to a construction company to complete a bypass of Carlow town has been adjourned at the High Court.
Nesselside Builders Ltd is seeking an order that Carlow County Council make available a 35-metre long plot of land so the company can put in the last section of the Carlow eastern bypass.
It brought proceedings requiring the council to provide access to 0.22 acres and to initiate a compulsory purchase order for it. It has also sought damages for alleged breach of contract, malfeasance in public office and fraudulent misrepresentation.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly has already rejected an application by the council to have the matter sent for arbitration and yesterday put the case back for full hearing next year.
Richard Nesbitt SC, for Nesselside, said that following talks yesterday there had been a large degree of agreement between the parties to have the dispute moved along.
Separate proceedings against the owner of the land involved have been adjourned for mention to January 21st. Both sets of proceedings could be heard together or with the landowner brought in as a third party, Mr Nesbitt said.
Mr Justice Kelly said he was not minded to join the landowner as a third party as it would only increase costs but the judge agreed that all proceedings should be heard together or consecutively.
While he would not order mediation, the judge said he would strongly advise it and he adjourned the application by Nesselside for an injunction until the hearing of the full action.
Nesselside, owned by Seán McLoughlin, Pollacton House, Carlow, and his family, claims the dispute is not only about the finishing of the road but about threats to the business by a senior council official, Séamus O'Connor. Mr McLoughlin claims Mr O'Connor, who is director of planning services with the council, has insisted that access to James Madden's land be provided for no additional payment by Mr Madden or the council.
Mr O'Connor has allegedly said, according to Mr McLoughlin, that he would "use his powers or influence to ensure refusal of zoning" for some or all of McLoughlin family lands near the disputed land. That disputed 0.22 acres is owned by Mr Madden who is separately seeking to build a health park and residential accommodation on an adjoining section of the lands. Mr Madden also wants access to these lands to be provided as part of the road construction project, according to Mr McLoughlin.
The council wants Mr Madden to be provided with a roundabout access to his property. That access, according to an engineer for Mr McLoughlin, is unnecessary and would not pass a road safety audit.
Mr McLoughlin claims, if the roundabout is provided, then another access to land owned by the McLoughlins - a business park recently developed by another member of the McLoughlin family - would have to be omitted from the overall road design.