Inver Resources Ltd v Limerick Corporation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1987 WJSC-HC 802
• Docket Number: Judicial Review No. 12/1986,[1986 No. 12 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1988

INVER RESOURCES LTD v. LIMERICK CORPORATION

INVER RESOURCES LIMITED, COYLE HAMILTON LIMITED, MATTHEWSMULCAHY SUTHERLAND LIMITED, BRENDAN JONES AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED, ANDPATRICK KELLY TRADING AS KELLY FOLEY & COMPANY.

Applicants

AND

THE MAYOR ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE CITY OF LIMERICK ANDRALPH PARKES

Respondents

1987 WJSC-HC 802

Judicial Review No. 12/1986

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Certiorari

Planning - Permission - Decision ~ultra vires~ - Application for certiorari statute barred - Whether decision a nullity - Allegation that permission was sought by non-existent company and without publication of statutory notices - Notification of decision to grant permission issued on 4/7/86 - Permission issued on 15/8/86 - Application for review instituted on 13/10/86 - Applicants for review accepted that review application had not been instituted within the two months commencing on the date when the decision was given, as required by s.82, sub-s.3A, of Act of 1963 - Held that the applicants" claim to an order of certiorari, quashing the planning authority's decision to grant the permission, was statute barred - Held that the decision was not a nullity, and that the planning authority should be directed to exercise its power under s.8 of the Act of 1963 to correct the relevant entry in the register - Application for review dismissed - Local Government (Planning & Development) Act, 1963, ss.8, 82 - (1986/12 JR - Barron J. - 4/2/87) - [1987] IR 159 [1988] ILRM 47

|Inver Resources v. Corporation of Limerick|

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS

Planning

Decision - Validity - Judicial review - Decision made ~ultra vires~ planning authority - Application for review made after expiry of time limit imposed by s.82, sub-s.3A, of Act of 1963 - Held that application statute barred - Held that decision was not a nullity - Local Government (Planning & Development) Act, 1963, ss.8, 82 - (1986/12 JR - Barron J. - 4/2/87) - [1988] ILRM 47 - [1987] IR 159

|Inver Resources v. Corporation of Limerick|

PLANNING

Time limit

Planning authority - Decision - Validity - Institution of proceedings raising issue of validity of decision - Proceedings statute barred unless instituted within two months commencing on date on which decision was given - Decision made ~ultra vires~ planning authority - Application for order of certiorari quashing decision - Application instituted after expiry of relevant period - Held, in dismissing application, that applicant's claim was statute barred - Held that decision was not a nullity, and that planning authority should be directed to exercise its power under s.8 of Act of 1963 to correct the relevant entry in the register - Local Government (Planning & Development) Act 1963, ss.8, 82 - (1986/12 JR - Barron J. - 4/2/87) - [1987] IR 159 [1988] ILRM 47

|Inver Resources v. Corporation of Limerick|

Citations:

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S82(3)(A)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S42

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1983 S26(4)

MONAGHAN UDC V ALF-A-BET PROMOTIONS LTD 1980 ILRM 64

FINGLAS INDUSTRIAL ESTATES LTD, STATE V DUBLIN CO CO UNREP 17.02.83 1983/2/421

GREHAN V MOUNT ELM CONSTRUCTION LTD

TOFT, STATE V GALWAY CORPORATION 1981 ILRM 439

ALF-A-BET PROMOTIONS LTD, STATE V BUNDORAN UDC 112 ILTR 9

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S8

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrondelivered on the 4th day of February 1987.

2 The planning application in this case was for the conversion of the lower ground floor of Leamy House, Upper Hartstonge Street, Limerick, to a snooker club with attendant alterations and extensions. The application was made on the 7th May 1986 and notification of the decision to grant permission issued on the 4th July 1986. The permission itself issued on the 15th August 1986. The Applicants in these proceedings did not become aware of the application and resultant decision until the 10th September 1986. They sought and on the 13th October 1986 obtained an Order for Judicial Review. This application was granted on the ground that the decision was ultra vires because (a) the application had not been advertised to the public and (b) it had been made by an non-existent company. The application is opposed by both Respondents. They deny that the decision of the first-named Respondent was ultra vires and further contend that in any event the decision cannot be challenged by virtue of the provisions of Section 82 (3A) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963as inserted by Section 42 of theLocal Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976.

3 A distinction must be drawn between cases in which the Planning Authority has made a decision and those in which it is sought to rely upon the fact that no decision has been made. In the latter cases, a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions contained in the regulations would prevent the default provisions contained in Section 26(4) of the 1983 Act from being applied: See Monaghan UDC .v. Alf-A-Bet Promotions Limited. In such circumstances, an Applicant cannot claim to have received the permission which he sought. In such cases, there is no decision actual or implied. In the former cases, the...