Finnegan v an Bord Pleanála

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeO'HIGGINS C.J.
Judgment Date27 July 1979
Neutral Citation1978 WJSC-SC 2638
Docket Number1977/5503 P.
CourtSupreme Court
Date27 July 1979
FINNEGAN v. AN BORD PLEANALA
FINNEGAN
v.
AN BORD PLEANALA and INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and RAYHESTOS MANHATTAN (IRELAND) LIMITED

1978 WJSC-SC 2638

1977/5503 P.
30-1979

THE SUPREME COURT

1

JUDGMENT delivered the 27th day of July 1979 by O'HIGGINS C.J. Nem Diss.

2

As part of his claim in these proceedings the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that certain provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976are repugnant to the Constitution. Originally in his Statement of Claim the Plaintiff sought a declaration that the entire Act was so repugnant. However, having failed in the High Court and having appealed to this Court he has by his Notice of Appeal confined his claim to seeking a declaration that Sections 15, 16 and 18 of the Act are so repugnant.

3

The Plaintiff was not professionally represented and conducted his appeal himself. His action is concerned with the Planning Appeal heard and determined before the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976came into operation. The only personal interest which the Plaintiff is entitled to claim in the outcome of these proceedings arises from the fact that he resides some four miles from the questioned development. Whether that propinquity gives him sufficient standing to mount an attack on the relevant statutory provisions on the ground of alleged unconstitutionality was not raised, and therefore not considered, in the High Court. Because the Plaintiff has not been professionally represented either in the High Court or in this Court, because the question of his standing to raise the constitutional issue has not been pleaded by the Defendants, and because of the urgency and gravity of the complaint against the development in question, the Court is prepared to assume, without so holding, that in the particular circumstances the Plaintiff was entitled to impugn. the constitutional validity of the sections in question.

4

The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976inter alia provides for the establishment of a Board known as An Bord Pleanála which is authorised to hear planning appeals and other matters referred to it. Such planning appeals were formerly, under the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and development) Act 1963, determined by the Minister for Local Government. The Act also provides for certain other amendments affecting the bringing and determination of appeals. It is the Plaintiff's contention that three of these amendments contained in Sections 15, 16 and 18 are repugnant to the Constitution and therefore invalid. Section 15 provides as follows:

5

2 "15. (1)A deposit of £10 shall be lodged with the Board by an appellant with his appeal and any appeal to the Board which is not accompanied by such deposit shall be invalid.

6

(2) As soon as may be after an appeal to the Board is either withdrawn or determined, subject to section 18(3) of this Act, the Board shall return the deposit to the appellant".

7

Section 16 provides as follows:

8

2 "16. (1) Except where a direction is given by the Minister under this section, the Board shall have an absolute discretion to hold an oral hearing of any reference or appeal to the Board.

9

(2) Where the Board is requested to hold an oral hearing of a reference or appeal and decides to determine the reference or appeal without an oral hearing, the Board -

10

(a) shall serve notice of its decision on the person who requested such hearing, and

11

(b) shall not proceed to determine the reference or appeal until...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Redmond v Minister for the Environment
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 July 2001
    ...U.S. 134; Figueroa v. Canada (1997) 147 D.L.R. (4th) 765; Lubin v. Panish (1974) 415 U.S. 709 followed. Finnegan v. An Bord Pleanála[1979] I.L.R.M. 134 distinguished. 9. That the fact the requirement of a deposit was an established practice was not sufficient to save it from a finding of un......
  • Redmond v Min for Environment and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 July 2001
    ...States, (US SCR 39 L.E.d. ii d. 702). 146 The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Finnegan -v- An Bord Pleanala and Others (1979) I.L.R.M. 134 is distinguishable as relating to the exercise of a statutory right and not a constitutional right and in any event two of the reasons give......

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