McCann v an Bord Pleanála

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1997
Date01 January 1997
Docket Number[1995 No. 257 JR]
CourtHigh Court

High Court

[1995 No. 257 JR]
McCann v. An Bord Pleanála
Francis Terence McCann
Applicant
and
An Bord Pleanála
Respondent
The County Council of Sligo, Notice Party

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Brady v. Donegal County Council [1989] I.L.R.M. 282.

Dodds v. Walker [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1061; [1980] 2 All E.R. 507, C.A.; [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1441; [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1027; [1981] 2 All E.R. 609.

K.S.K. Enterprises Ltd. v. An Bord Pleanála [1994] 2 I.R. 128; [1994] 2 I.L.R.M. 1.

Max Developments Ltd. v. An Bord Pleanála [1994] 2 I.R. 121.

McGuinness v. Armstrong Patents Ltd. [1980] I.R. 289.

Monaghan Urban District Council v. Alf-a-bet Promotions Ltd.[1980] I.L.R.M. 64.

The State (Abenglen Properties Ltd.) v. Dublin Corporation [1984] I.R. 381; [1982] 2 I.L.R.M. 590.

The State (Elm Developments) v. An Bord Pleanála [1981] I.L.R.M. 108.

Veterinary Council v. Corr [1953] I.R. 12; (1950) 88 I.L.T.R. 145.

Judicial review - Leave to apply - Planning decision - Whether appeal application made within time limit - Meaning of "month" - Interpretation Act, 1937 (No. 38), s. 11 - Local Government (Planing and Development) Act, 1963 (No. 28), s. 26, sub-s. 5 and s. 82, sub-ss. 3A and B - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992 (No. 14), s. 3 s. 17, sub-s. 1 and s. 19, sub-s. 3.

Notice of motion.

The facts are summarised in the headnote and are set out fully in the judgement of Lavan J. infra.

The applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review. They filed an affidavit and statement of grounds on the 11th October, 1995. The applicants' notice of motion seeking leave to apply for judicial review was heard by the High Court (Lavan J.) on the 18th December, 1995.

Section 11 of the Interpretation Act, 1937, provides inter alia:—

"(11) The following provision shall apply and have effect in relation to the construction of every Act of the Oireachtas and of every instrument made wholly or partly under any such Act, that is to say . . .

  • (h) Periods of time. Where a period of time is expressed to begin on or be reckoned from a particular day, that day shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be deemed to be included in such period, and, where a period of time is expressed to end on or be reckoned to a particular day, that day shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be deemed to be included in such period"

Section 26, sub-s. 5 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, as substituted by s. 3 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992, provides inter alia:—

"(a) Any person may, at any time before the expiration of the appropriate period, appeal to the Board against a decision of a planning authority under this section . . .

(f) In paragraph (a) of this subsection 'the appropriate period' means the period of one month beginning on the day of the giving of the decision of the planning authority."

By s. 82 of the Act of 1963, as amended by s. 19, sub-s. 3 of the Act of 1992:—

"(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."

By s. 17, sub-s. 1 (a) "an appeal received by the Board after the expiration of the appropriate period shall be invalid as not having been made in time."

On the 7th June, 1995, the notice party granted planning permission to the applicant. The applicant subsequently sought to appeal against the imposition of certain planning conditions contained in the said permission and his appeal was received by the respondent on the 7th July, 1995. By letter dated the 25th August, 1995, the applicant was informed that the appeal was inadmissible on the ground that the appeal, having been received on the 7th July, 1995, was out of time by one day. The respondent relied on s. 11 (h) of the Interpretation Act, 1937.

The applicant sought leave to seek judicial review of the respondent's decision on the grounds that the respondent had erred in law in concluding that the period for appealing the decision of Sligo County Council expired on the 6th July, 1995; that the error went to the jurisdiction of the respondent and/or appeared on the face of the record of the respondent's decision; that the rule of law and or statutory interpretation known as the "corresponding date" rule meant that the "appropriate period" as defined by s. 26, sub-s. 5 (f) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, did not expire until the 7th July, 1995, and therefore the appeal was within the prescribed time. It was also submitted that if the appeal was out of time, the applicant having substantially complied with the aforesaid provision, the respondent had the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Murphy v Cobh Town Council and Another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 26 Octubre 2006
    ...S4(5)(b) NI CHONGHAILE v GALWAY CO COUNCIL 2004 4 IR 138 MONAGHAN UDC v ALF-A-BET PROMOTIONS LTD 1980 ILRM 64 MCCANN v AN BORD PLEANALA 1997 1 IR 264 1997 1 ILRM 314 ROWAN v AN BORD PLEANALA UNREP FEENEY 26.5.2006 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50 CHAMBERS v AN BORD PLEANALA 1992 1 IR 134......
  • Walsh and Others v Garda Síochana Complaints Board
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 18 Enero 2010
    ...1937 S11(H) MCGUINNESS v ARMSTRONG PATENTS LTD 1980 IR 289 FREENEY v BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL 1982 ILRM 29 MCCANN v BORD PLEANALA 1997 1 IR 264 GARDA SIOCHANA (COMPLAINTS) ACT 1986 S4(3)(iv) GARDA SIOCHÁNA Complaints Time limits - Making of complaint - Computation of time period for m......
  • McMahon v Larkin
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 Junio 2016
    ...the 19th December 2012 must be included as the last day of the relevant 12 month period reckoned to that date. 29 McCann v. An Bord Pleanála and Sligo County Council [1997] 1 ILRM 314 was a case involving the application of a one month time limit for appeal under certain planning legisla......
  • Brendan Kirwan v John O'Leary, Bridget O'Leary, Seamus Turner, Peter Redmond, Cormac Mullen, Catherine O'Connor, Sean Nolan, Geraldine O'Loughlin and Wendy Smith, Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 Noviembre 2023
    ...(see McGuinness v. Armstrong Patents [1980] IR 289; Freeney v. Bray Urban District Council [1982] ILRM 29; McCann v. An Bord Pleanála [1997] 1 IR 264 and Walsh and ors. v. Garda Síochána Complaints Board [2010] IESC 2, [2010] 1 IR 400). The unavoidable consequence is that 30 October 2020 – ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Judicial review procedure under the planning and development act, 2000
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 1-2, January 2002
    • 1 Enero 2002
    ...Donegal County Council [1989] I.L.R.M. 282; K.S.K. Enterprises Ltd. v. An Bord Pleanála [1994] 2 I.R. 128; McCann v. An Bord Pleanála [1997] 1 I.L.R.M. 314. See also In re Illegal Immigrants Bill 1999 [2000] 2 I.R. 27 cf. De Róiste v. Minister for Defence [2001] 1 I.R. 190; [2001] 2 I.L.R.M......

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