Lancefort Ltd v an Bord Pleanála

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Morris
Judgment Date01 January 1998
Neutral Citation2000 WJSC-HC 4368
Docket Number[1997 No. 49,No. 49 J.R. 1997
CourtHigh Court
Date01 January 1998

2000 WJSC-HC 4368

THE HIGH COURT

No. 49 J.R. 1997
LANCEFORT LTD v. BORD PLEANALA & ORS
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

LANCEFORT LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND

AN BORD PLEANALA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENTS

AND

TREASURY HOLDINGS LIMITED
NOTICE PARTY

Citations:

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S82

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1992 S82(3B)

TREATY OF ROME ART 177(3)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1992 S82(3B)(b)(i)

EEC DIR 85/337

IRISH PRESS V INGERSOL 1995 1 ILRM 117

PRIVATE MOTORISTS PROTECTION SOCIETY LTD (PMPS) LTD V AG 1983 IR 339

CHESTVALE PROPERTIES LTD V GLACKEN 1993 3 IR 35

IARNROD EIREANN V IRELAND 1995 2 ILRM 161

Synopsis

Planning

Planning; judicial review; locus standi; domestic effect of EU legislation; applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court or, alternatively, an order of reference to the European Court of Justice; second and third named respondents (Ireland and Attorney General) challenge applicant's locus standi and also seek leave to appeal to Supreme Court on this issue; whether previous decision of High Court dismissing applicant's claim involves a point of law of exceptional public importance; whether it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court; whether Court is bound to disregard merits of original decision when determining whether point of law of exceptional public importance exists; whether Council Directive 85/337/EEC was properly transposed into domestic law; whether first named respondent is obliged to have regard to same, irrespective of domestic law with regard to the planning process; whether applicant has locus standi to apply for judicial review or to invoke Article 43 of the Constitution in this instance; s. 82, Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.

Held: Leave to appeal granted.

Lancefort Limited v. Bórd Pleanála - High Court: Morris J. - 23/07/1997

1

Mr. Justice Morris delivered on the 23rd day of July 1997.

2

The following motions are before the Court:-

3

(a) An application by the Applicant to adjourn the hearing of its motions. This application only becomes relevant in certain circumstances and I propose to postpone further consideration of this application.

4

(b) An application by the Applicant for a certificate of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 82 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963as inserted by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992.

5

(c) An application for an order of reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 177(3) of the Treaty of Rome on questions concerning the interpretation of Community Law.

6

(d) An application by Ireland and the Attorney General for a certificate of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 82 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.

7

Counsel for the Applicant has advised the Court that in the event of the Court acceding to his application for a certificate of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court then his application for a reference to the Court of Justice under Article 177(3) of the Treaty of Rome does not arise and accordingly I propose to deal with that application for a certificate of leave to appeal at the outset.

8

Section 82 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963(as inserted by the 1992 Act) places limitations upon the rights to seek Judicial Review questioning the validity of a decision of a planning authority or An Bord Pleanala and in particular provides at Section 82(3B) and subsection (b)(i):-

"The determination of the High Court of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review as aforesaid or of an application for Judicial Review shall be final and no appeal shall die from the decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court in either case save with the leave of the High Court which leave shall only be granted where the High Court certifies that its decision involves a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Arklow Holidays Ltd v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 29 March 2006
    ...interest - Kenny v An Bord Pleanála [2002] 1 ILRM 68; Raiu v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2003] 2 IR 63; Lancefort Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [1998] 2IR 511; Fallon v An Bord Pleanála [1992] 2IR 380; Irish Press v Ingersoll [1995] 1ILRM 117; Ashbourne Holdings v An Bord Pleanála (Unrep, Kearns J,......
  • Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Min for Communication and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 May 2010
    ...- Delay - Whether "special circumstances" exist - Whether European element special circumstance - Lancefort Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [1998] 2 IR 511, Village Residents Association Ltd v An Bord Pleanála (No 2) [2000] 4 IR 321, Peppard and Co Ltd v Bogoff [1962] IR 180 and Dublin Int Arena ......
  • Dublin International Arena Ltd v Campus and Stadium Ireland Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 26 May 2004
    ...DUBLIN WATERWORLD LTD & WATERWORLD (UK) LTD. Notice Parties Citations: RSC O.29 r1 COMPANIES ACT 1963 S390 LANCEFORT LTD V BORD PLEANALA 1998 2 IR 511 JACK O'TOOLE LTD V MACEOIN KELLY ASSOCIATES 1986 IR 277 EEC DIR 93/37 RSC O.84(E) RSC O.84(E) r4 UNIVERSALI-BAU V ENSORGUNGSBETRIEBE SIMME......
  • Lancefort Ltd v an Bord Pleanála, Ireland and Attorney General (No. 2)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1999
    ...(Planning and Development) Act, 1976 is repugnant to the Constitution. On the 23rd June, 1997, Morris J. gave judgment (reported at [1998] 2 I.R. 511) on an application for security for costs by the notice party and the second and third respondents against the applicant. This application ar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Companies Act: Security For Costs
    • Ireland
    • Mondaq Ireland
    • 10 May 2012
    ...which transcends the interests of the parties and is for the benefit of the community as a whole – Lancefort v An Bord Pleanala, [1998] 2 IR 511. 8 Peppard v Bogoff, [1962] IR 9 Millstream Recycling v Tierney, [2010] IEHC 55. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guid......

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