O'Neill v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1938 |
| Date | 01 January 1938 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
Special Case Stated for opinion of Supreme Court - Road and Railway Transport Act (N.I.), 1935, s. 7 (4) - Establishment of Road Transport Board and transfer of existing road transport undertakings -Provisions for Compensation - Road and Railway Transport Act (N.I.), 1935, s. 6 (c) - Validity -Government of Ireland Act, 1920 (10 11 Geo.5, c. 67), ss. 4 and 5 - The Parliament of Northern Ireland shall not make a law so as either directly or indirectly to take any property without compensation - "Special circumstances" s. 6 (c) -Effect of provision that "the tribunal shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case" -Section 9 (1) (a) - Proper basis of compensation where undertaking acquired from owner-manager - Method of determining consideration payable for transferred undertakings - "Property" meaning of, in Government of Ireland Act, 1920, s.5 (1).
In the year 1925 the claimant commenced the business of a road motor undertaking for passenger transport. Subsequently he also engaged in the business of a funeral undertaker and taxi proprietor. All these activities were still being carried on by him when the Road and Railway Transport Act (N.I.), 1935, came into effect. The principal object of that Act was to provide for the establishment of a Road Transport Board for Northern Ireland, and for the transfer to that Board of various road transport undertakings. Section 4 provided that it should be the duty of the Board so to exercise their powers as to secure a system of transport properly co-ordinated and giving efficient, economical and convenient transport services to the public. The procedure for the transfer of transport undertaking was prescribed by s. 5 of the Act, and in compliance with these provisions, a notice was duly served upon the claimant intimating that the Board would acquire his road motor undertaking. Such undertaking was to be transferred and to vest in the Board on 3rd December, 1935. The claimant's activities as taxi proprietor and funeral undertaker were excluded from the scope of the Act by the provisions of s. 15 (4) (a) and (g), and the notice only affected his road motor undertaking. The prescribed vesting order was made and after negotiations for a settlement had failed, the claimant gave notice to the Board requiring his claim to be heard by the Arbitration Tribunal set up under the Act. Schemes for the compensation payable to the claimant were duly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belfast Corporation v O. D. Cars Ltd
...only to the property of religious bodies or institutions. This point was decided against them twenty years ago in O'Neill v. The Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1938] N.I. 104 and I do not doubt that that case was rightly decided. An argument founded on the historical genesis of thes......
-
Gareth Lee v Colin McArthur, Karen McArthur and Ashers Baking Company Limited
...section 5 referred to the “prohibition of laws interfering with religious equality”, which was relied on by Andrews LJ in O’Neill v NIRTB [1938] NI 104 as being section 5’s “main purport”. 23 Discrimination under the 1973 Act [79] The Parliament of Northern Ireland established by the Govern......
-
Belfast Corporation v O'D Cars Ltd
... ... excluding compensation -Government of Ireland Act, 1920, s. 5 (1) -Planning and Housing Act ... (2) - Planning (Interim Development) Act (Northern Ireland), 1944, s. 6 (4) - Evidence - ... ...