Mr Michael Browne This is Me

 Web References

1. 1. www.shellnews.net

   www.shellnews.net/week33/weste - [Cached]

   Published on: 11/4/2007   Last Visited: 11/4/2007

   Mr Michael Browne, legal adviser, told the members while he could not direct them to take the legal advise, he "strongly urged" them to do so.
   ...
   Mr Michael Browne, legal adviser, said he was obliged to caution the members that the motion could expose the council to legal proceedings and he again urged that it be withdrawn. The councillors had an absolute duty under the Planning Acts to secure the objectives set out in the Co Development Plan. If they went ahead with the proposal it would be a breach of duty and would be actionable as the motion would represent a substantial modification of the permission granted by the council. He pointed out that the members also had an obligation under the 2001 Act to have regard for government policy.
   
   Shell had a ‘legitimate expectation' that having been granted permission they could go ahead with their project. "There is a permission in place and I have no doubt that the council could be sued by Shell or anybody connected to the project," he warned. He added that planning permission was a property right and breaking that left the council exposed.
   
   He adverted to the fact that in a previous matter (Glencar Exploration and gold-mining on the Reek) the council had become embroiled in very expensive litigation with twenty-one days in the High Court and four days in the Supreme Court.

2. 2. Western People: Kenny’s motion wins support of Council

   www.westernpeople.ie/news/stor - [Cached]

   Published on: 8/16/2005   Last Visited: 8/16/2005

   Mr Michael Browne, the council's legal adviser, said he was concerned about Cllr Quinn's motion. He saw nothing wrong with the council adopting the motion submitted by the Cathaoirleach but his function was to protect the council from the prospect of future legislation and he was advising against adopting the Quinn motion.

3. 3. WLL Newsletter #15 - 18th August '05

   www.woodlandleague.org/newslet - [Cached]

   Published on: 8/18/2005   Last Visited: 1/11/2006

   Mr Michael Browne, legal adviser, told the members while he could not direct them to take the legal advise, he "strongly urged" them to do so.
   ...
   Mr Michael Browne, legal adviser, said he was obliged to caution the members that the motion could expose the council to legal proceedings and he again urged that it be withdrawn. The councillors had an absolute duty under the Planning Acts to secure the objectives set out in the Co Development Plan. If they went ahead with the proposal it would be a breach of duty and would be actionable as the motion would represent a substantial modification of the permission granted by the council. He pointed out that the members also had an obligation under the 2001 Act to have regard for government policy. Shell had a ‘legitimate expectation' that having been granted permission they could go ahead with their project. "There is a permission in place and I have no doubt that the council could be sued by Shell or anybody connected to the project," he warned. He added that planning permission was a property right and breaking that left the council exposed. He adverted to the fact that in a previous matter (Glencar Exploration and gold-mining on the Reek) the council had become embroiled in very expensive litigation with twenty-one days in the High Court and four days in the Supreme Court. Cllr Murray said Shell were dealing with a Third World government when they came to Ireland but when they arrived in north Mayo they found they were not dealing with a third world people. For the first time in a long time the way government and big business operated was under scrutiny and the government decisions and actions was not bearing up well. He rejected the threats about legal action. He could not recall how many times the council had been reminded of Glencar and their duty to have regard to government policy.