How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ronan Your Own Question
Ronan, Solicitor
Category: Republic of Ireland Law
Satisfied Customers: 2235
Experience:  B. Corp Law, Ll.B. Dip Comm Prop. In general practice for more then 6 years
Type Your Republic of Ireland Law Question Here...
Ronan is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

For the attention of Buachaill, barrister, Republic of Ireland.Questio

Customer Question

For the attention of Buachaill, barrister, Republic of Ireland.

Question and answer as communicated a few days ago follows:

Customer Question

The 2007 water services act provides at Section 95.— (1) that A water services authority may by agreement take into public charge or acquire all or part of a waterworks or waste water works, or any rights connected to it, whether or not it is situated in its functional area, where not fewer than two thirds of those persons entitled to dispose of it agree to such transfer.

Can the Act be applied retrospectively allowing for a local authority to take ownership of community-based, community owned group water supply schemes constructed several years before the 2007 provisions were enacted, when the agreement of all members to such a takeover was a statutory requirement?

Members of older group water schemes, in particular those dating back to the mid nineties, had to provide a local contribution towards the development of such projects, and also secure a Department of the Environment grant, in some cases, co-funded by the EU, paid out to trustees, in order to obtain a household, business or farm connection to the supply. Through this, its believed local householders, farmers and others, as members, acquired rights of ownership in the schemes.

Has the case of Dublin City Council v. Fennell Supreme Court (2005) IESC 33 (2005)
Docket Number: 507/04 any relevance to the above?

Already Tried:

Submitted: 4 hours ago.

Category: Republic of Ireland Law

Value: 38 €

Status: CLOSED

Accepted Answer

Expert: Buachaillreplied 4 hours ago.

1. At the outset, you need to realise that section 95 of the 2007 Act is a statutory amendment to the Articles of Association or memorandum of Agreement or charter, or trust document of any existing group water scheme in existence when it came into existence in 2007. Once the Act was passed, it affected all group or community based water schemes, and the pre-existing unanimity requirement was removed, even if it was provided for in the Group Water scheme charter. Accordingly, you need to realise firstly, that the pre-exsiting unanimity ceased to exist even for Community water schemes in existence at the time the 2007 Act was passed. Secondly, that it constituted a statutory amendment to all Group Water Schemes charters. So it would apply to your pre-2007 Community water scheme.
2. Dublin County Council v. Fennell is not directly in point as that case related to Article 8 which relates to the family & private life. An interest in a community water scheme is not a private or family right. It is in the nature of a property right. So far as both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rigths is concerned, there can be no lawful taking of a property right without compensation. Accordingly, this would mean that under Articles 40(3) and 43 of the Constitution, which deal with property rights and under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, compensation must be paid to any members who have their property rights in the community Water Scheme removed by Section 95 of the 2007 Water Services Act. To this extent the provision of Section 95 are varied by the requirement to pay those members who do not assent to the taking over of the Community Water Scheme, compensation, for the statutory removal of their property rights.
3. So to conclude, you are entitled to seek compensation for the removal of your rights in the community Water Scheme if the two-thirds majority votes in favour of it.
Please RATE the Answer positively so that I may get paid

Expert Type



Republic of Ireland Law

Pos. Feedback:

97.6 %





Further to your comprehensive and most helpful response, towards the end of which you referred to entitlement to compensation where a number of members have not consented to a scheme being taken in charge by a local authority relying on the consent of just two thirds of the scheme's membership, can you advise as to whether the compensation is assessed or determined by reference to an estimated market value of the scheme, including its works or infrastructure, goodwill value and so on; the avenue through the claim for compensation has to or would normally be made, and if to a statutory body if the decision of the body may be appealed to the courts.

Thank you for your assistance to date.


Submitted: 4 years ago.
Category: Republic of Ireland Law
Expert:  Fran-mod replied 4 years ago.

I have sent Buachaill a message that your question is waiting for him. He will see it when he next checks his email.

Thanks for your patience.
Expert:  Buachaill replied 4 years ago.