Rossport residents injuncted at behest of Shell

mayo | environment | news report

Tuesday April 05, 2005 13:50

by Majella Mc Carron

News from the High Court relating to Shell in Mayo

For background on this case see:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69084

Yesterday 4 April the High Court case was concluded at
1pm.

Shell was granted a temporary injunction which means it can freely enter the lands of the defendants and if resisted can call on the forces of the State.

The defendants were and are despondent because they see no protection between themselves and the State and Shell.

However the main part of the 2 hour session was taken up by two defendants representing themselves and
presenting their submissions.

Brendan Philbin maintains that the documents he has received to date
do not confirm an instrument of consent.

He read out a reply from the Ombudsman that seemed to fully support his argument.

Breege Mc Garry spoke for more than an hour and the contents of her first and supplementary affidavits are worth close study. Hopefully they will be summarised
in due course. Her self defence before the President of the High Court has been most impressive.

Sufficient time was afforded to the defence and the plaintiffs over four full days.

Every one of her arguments and of the other defendants show up the arrogance of a
multinational in pursuing a projected 15 year gas flow.
Ireland does not need gas until 2025 by which time this so called find will have been exhausted.

It smacks of stealing apples from the orchard to sell to one's friends behind everyone's backs and destroying the fruit bearing trees as well.

Phadraig Campbell from Galway decided to draw the attention of Statoil, Norway to the situation and before 4pm a letter was handed into the Norwegian Embassy-the Government owns 70% of Statoil and a 36%
share in the North Corrib Consortium along with Shell and Marathon. Norway has very strict regulatory conditions on its own oil and gas industries.

The letter was signed by Phadraig and Majella for the Campaign to Protect Resources and Ogoni Solidarity
Ireland. Help in this action was given by William and a photographer from Indymedia.

The letter and photo is expected on Indymedia very soon.

After further clarification about respecting farming activities in progress at this time as directed by the judge we await the outcome of two judicial reviews on related matters before the Commercial Court.

save preference

Comments (3 of 3)

From Irish Times

by Terry

Tue Apr 05, 2005 13:58

Court orders Mayo farmers not to obstruct Shell pipeline

Six Mayo landowners were restrained by High Court orders yesterday from interfering with the laying by Shell E&P Ireland Ltd of a gas pipeline across their lands.

The interlocutory injunctions will continue until the full hearing of proceedings brought by Shell against the six, or until a further order of the court.

The company says the â‚¬900 million Corrib gas project is intended to be commissioned in October 2007. When in full production, Shell says it is envisaged the development will provide 60 per cent of the country's gas requirements.

The gas field is 65 miles off the Co Mayo coast. It is intended that a pipeline will take the gas to land and then through a nine kilometre onshore underground pipeline to a gas reception station where it will be processed and fed into the national gas grid. The High Court hearing relates to a portion of the onshore section of the pipeline.

The action arose after the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources made compulsory purchase orders to enable the pipeline to be constructed overland.

Shell sought restraining orders and damages when it alleged the six people obstructed its work.

The company claims there are about 30 landowners along the nine-kilometre route and 23 had consented to the work being carried out and had been compensated under an agreement with the Irish Farmers Association. Six of the remaining seven, it is alleged, physically obstructed attempts by Shell personnel to embark on work.

The restraining orders granted yesterday are against Philip McGrath, James B. Philbin, Willie Corduff, Monica Muller and BrÃd McGarry, all with addresses at Rossport South, Ballina, and against Peter Sweetman, with an address at Grosvenor Road, Rathmines, Dublin, and stated to be an occupier of Ms Muller's property.

The company had claimed that if work did not start by June 1st, it would incur substantial losses.

The six defendants had argued that it appeared there might not have been a valid consent given by the Minister for the pipeline. A recent parliamentary question had referred to an application for consent being reactivated and being presently under consideration.

In his decision yesterday, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, said the Minister's consent and the compulsory purchase orders were at the root of the case and raised very significant questions about property rights and concerns about the environment, planning, health and safety.

He proposed to accord to Shell a right to lay the pipes. However, the company would have to secure a further order before it had a right to use the pipes. In deciding there was a fair issue in the proceedings to be tried, the judge said he was required at this stage to presume that the statutes which conferred powers on the Minister were constitutional.

The court at this time also should take the view that the Minister and An Bord PleanÃ¡la were in a far better position than the court to decide that matters had been properly conducted, the judge added.

He gave the six defendants liberty to apply to the court and asked the company to undertake that there would be minimum interference with the defendants' rights. During the hearing over two days last month, Ms McGarry said the State had given away offshore exploration-rich territory to oil companies for a pittance.

Â© The Irish Times

The word is "enjoined"

by Word Police

Tue Apr 05, 2005 19:13

If you have been served with an injuction requiring you to do X or to refain from doing Y then you have been enjoined to do X. or not to do Y. The same Latin root, and even in Latin there was already a difference between noun join "iunct..." and verb join "iung...". The noun came to English more directly than the verb where passage through Old French switched the "in" to "en". The change from "ng" to "n" was part of a more general language change in English still in progress, which I could have illustrated by "still goin' on".

New Word

by Word Anarchist

Tue Apr 05, 2005 22:33

It is a new word, part of a continually evolving language.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Rossport residents injuncted at behest of Shell

Comments (3 of 3)