wtf is going on? Bizzarre
Purchase subject to receiving planning permission is quite common.
It's used when the prospective buyer wants to be sure they will be able to carry out the development they have in mind.
This thread is a fascinating indicator of who exactly up in here is invested/involved with the current establishment regime, whose only remit is continually riding ordinary people up the arse.
Yes quote me then bang on about something I never said. Did I say beneficial interest or pecuniary interest?
No. I did say he had an interest in the land, which he did. That is without doubt.
Complete and obvious conflict of interests which is what I said when this story first broke.
The OP I replied to earlier claimed he had no interest, not no beneficial interest.
Literally no interest, as in the English definition of it, which is what I replied to.
All of a sudden everyone's a fcuking solicitor.
See my post above.
Would you care to provide a legal definition of "pecuniary or beneficial interest"?
Regards...jmcc
Not this again. For the last time, this is the relevant except from section 177 of the Act:
(1) Where at a meeting of a local authority or of any committee, joint committee or joint body of a local authority, a resolution, motion, question or other matter is proposed or otherwise arises either—
(a) as a result of any of its functions under this or any other enactment, or
(b) as regards the performance by the authority, committee, joint committee or joint body of any of its functions under this or any other enactment,
then, a member of the authority, committee, joint committee or joint body present at such meeting shall, where he or she has actual knowledge that he or she or a connected person has a pecuniary or other beneficial interest in, or which is material to, the matter—
(i) disclose the nature of his or her interest, or the fact of a connected person’s interest at the meeting, and before discussion or consideration of the matter commences, and
(ii) withdraw from the meeting for so long as the matter is being discussed or considered,
and, accordingly, he or she shall take no part in the discussion or consideration of the matter and shall refrain from voting in relation to it.
It is clear from the drafting ("pecuniary or OTHER beneficial interest") that a "pecuniary interest" is a particular form of a "beneficial interest". The term "beneficial interest" has a particular meaning in the Law of Equity, and generally means a right over property which is separate and distinct to strict legal title. Section 176 of the Act provides the following examples of "beneficial interests":
(1) In respect of a resolution, motion, question or other matter which is proposed, or otherwise arises from or as regards F241[the performance by the local authority concerned, or any municipal district members for that authority, of any functions] under this or any other enactment, “beneficial interest” for the purposes of this Part, in relation to a person, includes an interest in respect of which—
(a) he or she or a connected person, or any nominee of his or her or of a connected person, is a member of a company or any other body which has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any such matter,
(b) he or she or a connected person is in a partnership with or is in the employment of a person who has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any such matter,
(c) he or she or a connected person is a party to any arrangement or agreement (whether or not enforceable) concerning land which relates to any such matter,
(d) he or she or a connected person in the capacity as a trustee or as a beneficiary of a trust has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any such matter,
(e) he or she or a connected person is acting with another person to secure or exercise control of a company which has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to any such matter.
It is clear that under no interpretation of the term "beneficial interest" would it extend to a mere intention to acquire property in the future on the open market. An intention does not create a equitable right, and therefore cannot create a "beneficial interest". Ergo, Niall Collins did not have a "pecuniary or other beneficial interest" in the matter, and neither did his wife.
That is the last thing I will say on this matter. If you are upset by this obvious fact, then I recommend contacting your TDs and urging them to amend the law. Have them call it "Niall's Law" if you want. But currently what Niall Collins did was eminently legal, if downright dodgy and crying foul does not change that simple and obvious fact.
It's very hard to educate pork
I never said it was
Interested isnt "interest" in a legal sense
One thing I dont understand
Eimear O'Connor applied for planning permission on the site in December 2007
Eimear O'Connor purchased the site officially in January 2009
I dont understand how you could apply for planning permission on a site you dont own
No I'm not.
Because you are trying to transpose non legal terminology onto legal terminology
I mean if I'm looking to buy something I'm interested in it by default.
How anyone can argue any different is beyond me.
Lol the Russians did it!
there were no other tenderers.......... all other interested parties pulled out of the process before tendering their quotations.
look, im no political apologist, naughton deserved to go, BECAUSE of the optics of what he did, i have no problem at all in saying that. But at the end of the day he wasnt found to be guilty of any misconduct, stupidity yes of course.
And similarly what Collins did on his planning application where he actively LIED in 1999 about owning a house in limerick, is an actionable offense and there should have been more fall out from it, but in this particular case, while the optics are poor and teh morals are questionable, he hasnt been found to have done anything wrong.
so i still stand by my point in my response to that post that optics alone can be reason for action.
Naughton's situation was not just optics. Other tenderers to that procurement could very likely have succeeded in claims of a demonstrable bias, in the event of a Court appeal to the award. As I said, it exposed the State to potentially massive additional costs.
So it's not a valid comparison, either in action or in consequence.
its absolutely comparable in that nothing wrong was shown or proven, so his resignation was based on optics alone, hell even the taoiseach who called for his resignation admitted to this
""But I do believe he left himself open to allegations of a conflict of interest and an inappropriate relationship with Mc McCourt which could have in turn brought the process into question, thus potentially jeopardising the project in its entirety."
and naughtons response
"I'm now left in that impossible stark position a politician never wants to be in. Do I make the decision to resign or wait for the decision to be made for me. It's more about optics than fibre optics,"
so as a response to timmyntc's post about an actionable response to optics, its completely comparable.
The specific circumstances of Naughton's misjudgment justifiably led to his departure. It was monumentally stupid and potentially very costly to the State.
And not remotely comparable to this Collins discussion.
ask denis naughton
They're trying to appease people. Its what politicians do.
I would also say that it would have made everyone's life easier if he just abstained. I would go so far as to say its a bit silly that he didn't. But I also know that there was nothing wrong legally with what he did.
My boss tells me things I should do differently in work from time to time. It doesn't even mean I was wrong, sometimes it just makes life easier for everyone.
Ed Miliband being victim of the British press photographers would not provoke a public statement from his higher ups saying he shouldnt have eaten it though.
Politics is rarely based on facts.
As we can see from this thread there is a multitude of people who will readily believe he did something wrong and even that he committed a crime when he clearly did not. He could have avoided this with a bit of foresight, but he's not exactly going to go down as a political behemoth. He could have been focused on being "whiter than white" and not even let the possibility of the mistaken view of impropriety develop.
Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich and looking like an idiot doing it was bad optics but it had political impact and also was quite clearly not "wrong". This falls in the bucket of "not a big deal, but a bit silly".
What could be bad optics about a situation where he had done *nothing* wrong?
Because it was bad optics that could be twisted as has clearly happened and he's still a politician (and a better one than Collins).
He also said he had absolutely no legal requirement to do so.
If there was nothing wrong with it then why did the Taoiseach say Collins should have recused himself from the vote?
You have no idea what you just stated. And you have no idea that you have no idea. I'm not sure which is more difficult for you.
But anyway, this Collins issue is best summed up in the explanation of a few of the dreaded MAIN STREAM MEDIA!!!!! last night and today.
1. Only the full County Council, at a statutory meeting of the full County Council can vote in a binding fashion to sell, or to use the legislative term, dispose of land. Meetings of local area Committees are meaningless legally and practically on this issue.
2. The sale of the land, when approved to proceed by the full Council was handled by the relevant officials of the Council Executive, all well after Niall Collins ceased to be a member of the Council.
3. Did Niall Collins breach the Local Government Act 2001, as amended? No he absolutely did not, in any way.
Any ifs, buts or whataboutery after these facts are just word slurry.
This is over.
Syd, you might as well be trying to explain quantum physics to a goldfish as trying to rationalise this for a cohort who simply won’t accept that this wasn’t a massive crime and symptomatic of the banana republic in which they live.
Dey is not for turning.
The Sound of Silence.
307, now 308, posts in the last three days just on this thread.
How do you enrage a populist putz like Coillte Bhoy?
Just breathe.
And that is quite clearly not what "pecuniary or beneficial interest" means. It is a legal phrase/terminology.
be careful, your ignorance of the issue here is showing
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
