Fitzpatrick v an Bord Pleanála

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
JudgeClarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,Dunne J.
Judgment Date26 April 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] IESCDET 61
Date26 April 2018

[2018] IESCDET 61

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

BETWEEN
SINEAD FITZPATRICK

AND

ALLAN DALY
APPELLANTS
AND
AN BORD PLEANÁLA
RESPONDENT
AND
GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL

AND

APPLE DISTRIBUTION INTERNATIONAL
NOTICE PARTIES

Planning and development – EU law – Leave application – Applicant seeking leave to appeal from the order and judgment of the High Court – Whether the decision of the High Court involved no more than the application of well established principles of European law to the particular facts of this case

Facts: The High Court (McDermott J) determined that a project for which development consent was sought, consisting of only the first data hall and grid connection of a larger 8-data hall masterplan, would be implemented as a standalone project regardless of the outcome of any further planning application. The central issue on appeal to the Supreme Court concerned the question of the manner in which it was required, as a matter of law, for the respondent, An Bord Pleanála, to have regard to the potential expansion of the project under consideration by the possible construction of further data halls up to and including eight. Essentially, the case made on behalf of An Bord Pleanála on this leave application was that the decision of the High Court in this matter involved no more than the application of what were said to be well established principles of European law to the particular facts of this case; if that were to be so then there might be a strong argument for the proposition that neither the 33rd Amendment or relevant provisions of European Union law required that the Supreme Court give leave to appeal.

Held by Clarke CJ, MacMenamin J and Dunne J that the CILFIT (Case – 238/81) jurisprudence places a significant obligation on a court of final appeal in cases such as this.

Clarke CJ, MacMenamin J and Dunne J held that they would grant leave to appeal. The Court would direct that any notice of intention to proceed must be filed within seven days of this determination. The Court would arrange, on the assumption that a notice of intention to proceed is filed within that timeframe, for an early case management hearing which would take place prior to the filing of written submissions (and would vary the standard directions contained in the statutory practice direction to that effect). Amongst other things the Court would wish to be addressed at that first case management hearing on: (a) the scope of the grounds of appeal which ought properly be permitted to be pursued on this appeal having regard to the way in which the case was fought in the High Court; (b) whether the Court should direct an early and preliminary hearing on the question of whether it is necessary, in the context of the CILFIT jurisprudence, for the Court to make a reference to the Court of Justice under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and (c) the putting in place of expedited directions to lead either to an early preliminary hearing of the type identified at (b) or to an expedited full hearing as the Court considers appropriate.

Application granted.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES
RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
COURT: High Court
DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 12th October 2017
DATE OF ORDER: 1st November 2017
DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 2nd November 2017
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 1st DECEMBER 2017 AND WAS NOT IN TIME.
General Considerations
1

The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the 33rd Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions (2017) IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Fitzpatrick v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 11 d4 Abril d4 2019
    ...reasons set out in the written judgment delivered on 1 November 2017: [2017] IEHC 644. 13 By a determination given on 26 April 2018: [2018] IESCDET 61, this Court granted leave to the appellants to appeal from the decision of the High Court. The determination stated that at case management......
  • Halpin v an Bord Pleanala
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 d5 Maio d5 2020
    ...law to the facts of the case. An example of a determination falling on the other side of the line is Fitzpatrick v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESCDET 61. An Bord Pleanála has placed particular reliance on this determination, and I will return to discuss it at paragraph 61 18 The most recent S......
  • Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 26 d2 Abril d2 2022
    ...Insurance Limited v. Price Waterhouse Coopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 IR 812 (“ Quinn Insurance”) and Fitzpatrick v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESCDET 61 (“ Fitzpatrick”), the closer you come on the spectrum to the application of well-established legal principles to the facts of an individua......
  • Rushe v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 d1 Agosto d1 2020
    ...Simons J. gave, as an example of a determination falling on the other side of the line, the case of Fitzpatrick v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESCDET 61 (“ Fitzpatrick“). It was argued that the determination of the Supreme Court in that case was authority for the proposition that the applicati......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Environment & Planning Group Update, April 2018
    • Ireland
    • Mondaq Ireland
    • 14 d1 Maio d1 2018
    ...22 - 18 April 2018 Sinead Fitzpatrick and Allan Daly v An Bord Pleanála, Galway County Council and Apple Distribution International [2018] IESCDET 61- 26 April 2018 Read more >> EUROPEAN NEWS Case C-323/17 People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta – 12 April 2018 Case C-441/17 Com......

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