Patrick Doyle & Sonia Ruiz v NI Electricity Networks
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Horner J,Mr Spence |
| Judgment Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | R/21/2019 |
| Court | Lands Tribunal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 30 September 2021 |
TRIBUNAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
LANDS TRIBUNAL AND COMPENSATION ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1964
ELECTRICITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1992
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE
R/21/2019
BETWEEN
MR PATRICK DOYLE - 1ST APPLICANT
MRS SONIA RUIZ – 2ND APPLICANT
AND
NORTHERN IRELAND ELECTRICITY NETWORKS LIMITED – RESPONDENT
Re: 36 Glenbawn Park, Belfast
Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland –
The Honourable Mr Justice Horner, President and
Henry Spence MRICS Dip.Rating IRRV (Hons), Member
Background
1. Mr Patrick Doyle (“the 1st applicant”) is the owner-occupier of a semi-detached house located
at 36 Glenbawn Park, Twinbrook, Belfast (“the reference property”), having lived there since
childhood.
2. The 1st applicant is currently the co-owner of the reference property which he holds with his
mother. He has advised the Tribunal that his mother has no current interest in the reference
property and is not involved in the proceedings before the Tribunal. This is unusual because
as co-owner, Mrs Doyle, will be entitled to 50% of any compensation. The Tribunal does not
know Mrs Doyle’s attitude to the application except what it has been told by the 1st Applicant.
At the very least the Tribunal would reasonably have ex pected evidence from her as to the
living conditions at the reference property, and in particular, on the effect of electrical
transmission lines which oversail the reference property. In the light of our conclusion as to
the reliability of the evidence o f the 1st and 2nd applicants, her failure to give sworn testimony
is significant.
3. Northern Ireland Electricity Networks Limited (“the respondent”) electrical transmission lines
oversail the rear corner of the house and garden of the reference property. These consist of
twelve 275kV lines and an earth wire. None of the respondent’s equipment is sited on the
reference property but a substantial pylon is located in an adjacent field, some 10 to 15
metres from the house. The lines and equipment pre-date the construction of the reference
property in 1989.
4. The Doyle family originally purchased the reference property in March 2006 under the
Northern Ireland Housing Executive (“NIHE”) “right to buy” scheme. When asked by the
Tribunal the 1st applicant advised that, at the time of purchase, no reduction to the “right to
buy” market value was sought by the Doyle family, to reflect the presence of the nearby pylon
and/or the oversail lines.
5. The respondent’s lines have oversailed the reference property for many years o n foot of a
voluntary wayleave agreement (“VWL”) which originated on 23rd January 1980. This VWL was,
however, terminated by the 1st applicant on 12th August 2015.
6. The respondent then made an application to the now Department of the Economy (“the
Department”) to retain its lines and it was subsequently granted a Necessary Wayleave
(“NWL”) on 22nd June 2018, in pursuance of its powers under the Electricity (Northern Ireland)
Order 1992 (“the 1992 Order”).
7. Mrs Sonia Ruiz (“the 2nd applicant”) has advised the Tribunal that she is a “tenant” of the
1st applicant and she has resided in the reference property with her two daughters for
approximately five years, although she failed to submit a copy of her “tenancy agreement” to
the Tribunal. The decision not to put the document which apparently regulated the legal
relationship between the applicants before the Tribunal was a deliberate one. It was taken
knowing full well that the onus was on the applicants to prove their case and their entitlement
to compensation under the 1992 Order.
8. Having been unable to agree compensation arising out the grant of the NWL to the
respondent both applicants have submitted compensation claims to the Tribunal. The
references were made on 31st October 2018. The correct amount o f compensation payable, if
any, is, therefore, the issue to be decided by the Tribunal.
9. The NWL was granted on 22nd June 2018 (“the valuation date”) and the parties were agreed
that this was the correct date for the assessment of compensation.
10. During the course of the hearing Mr Shaw QC was cross-examining the 1st applicant on various
matters relating to the basis upon which the 2 nd applicant occupied the reference property,
the nature of her relationship with the 1st applicant and the source of the money the
2nd applicant was receiving for caring for Mrs Doyle. The 1st applicant denied that he had any
romantic relationship with the 2nd applicant. He said that the payment from the 2nd applicant
of £300 gross was by way of housing benefit and that the 2nd applicant’s income was derived
from her role as full-time carer of his mother. It was not clear to the Tribunal whether the
2nd applicant received benefits such as Personal Independence Payments or whether she was
paid a wage by the DHSS. The Tribunal for want of evidence has been unable to make findings
as to (i) what money, if any, the 2nd applicant received for looking after Mrs Doyle and from
whom it came; and (ii) what money, if any, was paid, by whom, and on what basis, to permit
the 2nd applicant to stay in the reference property with her children. Indeed, it seemed to the
Tribunal that a deliberate decision was taken to limit the information it was given about the
circumstances in which the 2nd applicant resided in the reference property.
11. In the circumstances the Tribunal considered the cross-examination by Mr Shaw QC of the
1st applicant to be reasonable, proportionate and relevant especially in the absence of any
independent written evidence as to the nature of the 1st and 2nd applicants’ legal relationship.
However, the 1st applicant was apparently overwhelmed and he left the witness box unable to
continue to answer the questions which were being put to him. A report from a consultant
psychiatrist was obtained and on the basis of this report the Tribunal introduced measures to
allow the 1st applicant to continue his evidence without reaching a final conclusion as to the
reason why he had left the witness box. In the meantime the Tribunal reserved its opinion on
what had happened until the 1st applicant had completed his testimony and it had all the
necessary information to reach a final conclusion.
12. The Tribunal has concluded on the basis o f all the evidence, and for the reasons which appear
later in the judgment that the 1st applicant was an unreliable historian prone to exaggeration
and embellishment. The Tribunal do not consider that he is a vulnerable witness, but rather
To continue reading
Request your trial