Max Developments Ltd v Green Property Plc
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 1994 |
| Date | 25 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | [1993 No. 212 J.R.] |
| Court | High Court |
High Court
There are no cases mentioned in this report.
Judicial review - Leave to apply - Time limit - Delay - Appropriate time to challenge decision - Whether decision made within jurisdiction - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 (No. 28), s. 82 - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992 (No. 14), s. 19, sub-s. 3.
Planning - Development - Application for planning permission - Whether an environmental impact statement required - Whether property in an existing or an extended urban area - European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations; 1989 (S.I. No. 349), articles 6, 24 and first schedule - Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1990 (S.I. No. 25), article 4 - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 (No. 28), s. 4.
Notice of motion.
The facts are summarised in the headnote and are set out fully in the judgment of Flood J., post.
The applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review. They filed an affidavit and statement of grounds on the 15th July, 1993. A statement of opposition was filed on the 9th September, 1993, by the respondent.
The applicants' notice of motion dated the 26th July, 1993, seeking leave to apply for judicial review was heard by the High Court (Flood J.) on the 28th and 29th October, 1993.
Section 19, sub-s. 3 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992, amends s. 82 (as amended) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, and provides inter alia:—
"(3A) A person shall not question the validity of —. . .
(b) a decision of the Board on any appeal or on any reference otherwise than by way of an application for judicial review under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (S.I. No. 15 of 1986) (hereafter in this section referred to as 'the Order').
(3B) (a) An application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Order in respect of a decision referred to in subsection (3A) of this section shall
(i) be made within the period of two months commencing on the date on which the decision is given, and
(ii) be made by motion on notice (grounded in the manner specified in the Order in respect of an ex parte motion for leave) . . .
and such leave shall not be granted unless the High Court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision is invalid or ought to be quashed."
Part II of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1990, provides for the submission with applications for planning permission of environmental impact statements.
Article 4 of the Regulations provides:—
"(1) A planning application in respect of any development of a class for the time being specified under Article 24 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations . . . shall . . . be accompanied by an environmental impact statement."
Article 6 of the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989, amends s. 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, by inserting sub-section 4. Sub-section 4 (a) provides:—
"The Minister may, in connection with the Council Directive, prescribe development or classes of development for the purposes of this subsection."
Article 24 of the Regulations of 1989 provides that development of the classes set out in Parts I and II of the first schedule are thereby specified for the purposes of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCann v an Bord Pleanála
...1937, "month" meant a calendar month, and the "corresponding date rule" had no application. Max Developments Ltd. v. An Bord PleanálaIR [1994] 2 I.R. 121 distinguished. Dodds v. WalkerWLR [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1027 not followed. 3. That s. 17, sub-s. 1 (a) of the Act of 1992 made it clear that th......
-
Kavanagh v Ireland and Others
...(Unrep, Kearns J, 7/3/2003), O'Connell v Environmental Protection Agency [2001] 4 IR 494, Max Developments Ltd v An Bord Pleanala [1994] 2 IR 121, Mulcreevy v Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government [2004] IESC 5, [2004] 1 IR 72, Martin v An Board Pleanala [2007] IESC 23, (U......
-
Sloan v Bord Pleanála
...1999 SI 93/1999 REG 14(B) CO DIR 97/11/EC O'CONNELL V ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY 2002 1 ILRM 1 MAX DEVELOPMENT LTD V BORD PLEANALA 1994 2 IR 121 Synopsis: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Public Inquiry Planning and Environmental Law - Approval of road construction scheme - Administrative ......
-
CANN v Bord Pleanála
...(PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1992 S17(1) INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 S11 DODDS V WALKER 1981 2 AER 609 MAX DEVELOPMENTS LTD V BORD PLEANALA 1994 2 IR 121 INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 S11(h) MCGUINNESS V ARMSTRONG PATENTS LTD 1980 IR 289 INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 SCHED 19 KSK ENTERPRISES LTD V BORD PLE......
-
Judicial review procedure under the planning and development act, 2000
...remedying power would destroy its jurisdiction even under the broad interpretation. 87 Cf. Max Developments Ltd. v. An Bord Pleanála [1994] 2 I.R. 121. The desire to avoid such criticism gives rise to the intriguing possibility that an applicant himself might seek to stay his own judicial r......