Fingal County Council v Dowling and Others

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr. Justice de Valera
Judgment Date26 July 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] IEHC 258
Date26 July 2007
Docket Number402 CA/[2005]

[2007] IEHC 258

THE HIGH COURT

402 CA/[2005]
FINGAL CO COUNCIL v DOWLING & PETERS
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 AND IN THE
MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL

BETWEEN

FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL
PLAINTIFF

AND

KEVIN MARTIN DOWLING, BRIAN PETERS AND WILLIAM PETERS
DEFENDANTS
Abstract:

Planning and development - Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 - Whether the plaintiff’s claim was statute barred pursuant to section 160(6)(a)(i) of the 2000 Act.

This case was an appeal by way of re-hearing from the decision of the Circuit Court. The plaintiff sought by way of appeal an order restraining the defendants from using the original steel framed corrugated apex roofed agricultural structure on specified lands as a PVC window and door factory. The defendants contended with the support of affidavit evidence that PVC door and window manufacturing commenced on those lands in or about July 1997. The plaintiff did not adduce any evidence regarding the commencement of that work on that particular site.

Held by de Valera J. in dismissing the plaintiff’s application: That the plaintiff failed to prove its contention that the use of the structure for the manufacture of PVC doors and windows commenced since July 1998. The plaintiff made no attempt to challenge or contradict the assertions contained in the defendant’s affidavits to the effect that the PVC window/door operation commenced in or about July 1997. Consequently, the defendants’ assertions were accepted and therefore the plaintiff’s application was statute barred.

Reporter: L.O’S.

Mr. Justice de Valera
1

This is an appeal by way of re-hearing from the decision of Her Honour Judge Linnane in the Circuit Court on the 9th November, 2005. By notice of motion dated the 6th July, 2005, the plaintiffs sought:

2

1. An order restraining the defendants and each of them, their servants or agents, licensees and all persons having knowledge of the making of the order from carrying out any development on lands situate at Baldongan, Skerries in the County of the City of Dublin.

3

2. An order restraining the defendants and each of them, their servants or agents, licensees and all persons having knowledge of the making of the order from using the original steel framed corrugated apex roofed agricultural structure on the lands at Baldongan, Skerries, Co. Dublin, as a PVC window and door factory.

4

3. An order restraining the defendants and each of them, their servants or agents, licensees and all other persons having knowledge of the making of the order from using a large single storey extension to the rear of the said agricultural structure on the western boundary of lands at Baldongan, Skerries, Co. Dublin, as part of the manufacturing process relating to the PVC window and door factory.

5

4. An order restraining the defendants and each of them, their servants or agents, licensees and all other persons having knowledge of the making of the order from completing and using as the large apex steel framed structure of solid block construction on the southern side of the existing agricultural structure incorporating a mezzanine floor over ground floor for storage purposes at Baldongan, Skerries, Co. Dublin, as part of the manufacturing process relating to the PVC window and door factory.

6

5. An order directing the defendants and each of them to cease the use of the large steel framed corrugated apex roof agricultural structure and remove the single storey extension erected to the rear of that agricultural structure on the western boundary and the large apex steel framed structure with solid block walls from the lands and premises at Baldongan, Skerries in the County and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Gerard Doorly v Ciara Corrigan and Padraig Corrigan
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 21 January 2022
    ...be viewed as contradictory. But one has to step back and view the jurisprudence as a whole. 102 . In Fingal County Council v. Dowling [2007] IEHC 258, [2007] 7 JIC 2604 (Unreported, High Court, de Valera J., 26 th July, 2007), de Valera J. seems to have approached the limitations defence on......
  • Wicklow County Council v Fortune [High Court] (No 1)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 October 2012
    ...URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL v GOLDEN & ORS 2002 1 ILRM 439 FINGAL CO COUNCIL v DOWLING & PETERS UNREP DE VALERA 26.7.2007 2007/23/4735 2007 IEHC 258 WICKLOW CO COUNCIL v JESSUP & SMITH UNREP EDWARDS 8.3.2011 2011/49/13975 2011 IEHC 81 LAMBERT v LEWIS & KIELY UNREP GANNON 24.11.82 1983/3/611 FIN......
  • Wicklow County Council v Jessup & Smith
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 8 March 2011
    ...LTD UNREP MCKECHNIE 28.4.2005 2005/55/11532 2005 IEHC 408 FINGAL CO COUNCIL v DOWLING & PETERS UNREP DE VALERA 26.7.2007 2007/23/4735 2007 IEHC 258 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REGS 2001 SI 600/2001 ART 6(1) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REGS 2001 SI 600/2001 ART 9 DUBLIN CO COUNCIL v TALLAGHT BLOCK CO ......
  • Jim (Otherwise James) Ferry v John Caulderbanks T/a D&M Services and D&M Environmental Services Ltd T/a DM Waste
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 21 December 2021
    ...G.W. McConnell Ltd [1990] I.L.R.M. 48; Dublin Corporation v. McGowan [1993] 1 I.R. 405; and Fingal County Council v. Dowling and Peters [2007] IEHC 258.) 10 Yet hearsay evidence was precisely the basis of the trial judge's finding of unauthorised development in this case. Having relied upon......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT