McCarthy v an Bord Pleanála

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr. Justice Geoghegan
Judgment Date15 May 1998
Neutral Citation[1998] IEHC 75
Docket Number[1998 No. 112 J.R.]
Date15 May 1998

[1998] IEHC 75

THE HIGH COURT

No. 112 JR/1998
McCARTHY v. AN BORD PLEANALA & McGRATH
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

FRANK MC CARTHY SUING ON BEHALF OF OLD BAWN COMMUNITY SCHOOL
APPLICANT

AND

AN BORD PLEANÁLA
RESPONDENT

AND

ALAN MC GRATH (AS REPRESENTATIVE OF SHAMROCK ROVERS FOOTBALL CLUB) AND SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
NOTICE PARTIES

Citations:

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1992 S19(3)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S82

KSK ENTERPRISES LTD V BORD PLEANALA 1994 2 ILRM 1

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S82(3B)(a)(ii)(2)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1992 S19

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1992 S1

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

RSC O.84

Synopsis

Planning

Planning permission; prior application for leave to seek Judicial Review; time limit; whether application made within prescribed statutory time; whether co-appellants were served with the application for leave to bring Judicial Review proceedings within the prescribed statutory time; whether co-appellants were parties to the appeal to An Bord Pleanála; s 19(3), Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992

Held: Application for leave properly constituted (High Court: Geoghegan J.15/05/1998)

Mc Carthy v. Mc Grath - [2000] 1 IR 42

1

Judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegan delivered the 15th day of May 1998

2

What has come before this Court is a preliminary question as to whether an application on notice for leave to seek Judicial Review of a decision of An Bord Pleanála to grant a planning permission is now out of time having regard to the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992amending Section 82 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.In brief, what happened was that a planning permission was granted by South Dublin County Council and an appeal was brought to An Bord Pleanála by three objectors, one of whom is the propósed Applicant in the intended Judicial Review proceedings. An Bord Pleanála upheld the decision of South Dublin County Council and the Applicant claims that the decision is invalid and can be judicially reviewed. He brought the motion on notice required under the new procedure and served it on Alan McGrath as representative of Shamrock Rovers Football Club, the developer and South Dublin County Council, the Planning Authority but the motion was not served on the two original co-appellants on the appeal to An Bord Pleanála. There are waiving any objection to non service and are not interested in participating in the proceedings. Furthermore, both of them have sworn affidavits stating that the substantive point at issue in the proposed Judicial Review application does not concern them and does not relate to any of the submissions they made at the appeal before An Bord Pleanála. Nevertheless, the Respondent and the two Notice Parties are all arguing that the application for Judicial Review is out of time and cannot be heard because those two co-appellants on the appeal to An Bord Pleanála were not served with the application for leave to bring the Judicial Review proceedings within the prescribed statutory time. They base this argument on the following:-

3

1. In K.S.K. Enterprises Limited -v- An Bord Pleanála, 1994 2 I.L.R.M. 1, Finlay C.J. delivering the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court said the following at p.7:-

"I therefore conclude that the true interpretation of the Section is that it may be complied with by an application which has been made within the time limited in the sense that a notice of motion grounded as is provided in O.84 has been filed in the High Court and it has been served on all the mandatory parties...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Murray v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 28 January 2000
    ...the lands in question in these actual proceedings actually lay. The letter in no way altered this position. McCarthy v. An Bord Pleanála [2000] 1 I.R. 42 distinguished. 2. That the county council was a "party to an appeal" for the purposes of s. 82(3A) of the Act of 1963 and that section ma......
  • Waterville Fisheries Development Ltd v Aquaculture Licenses Appeals Board and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 8 April 2014
    ... 1994 2 IR 128 1994 2 ILRM 1 1994/4/1176 MCCARTHY (OLD BAWN COMMUNITY SCHOOL) v BORD PLEANALA & MCGRATH (SHAMROCK ROVERS FOOTBALL CLUB) 2000 1 IR 42 1998/24/9598 1998 IEHC 75 MURRAY v BORD PLEANALA 2000 1 IR 58 1999/14/4048 LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S82(3)(A) Fisheries......
  • John Casey v The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, The Minister for State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Ireland and The Attorney General
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 16 July 2021
    ...form of judicial review was not intended to be created by the 2014 amendments. 69 . Geoghegan J. in McCarthy v. An Bord Pleanala [2000] 1 I.R. 42 provides a useful statement of principle: “Counsel for the applicant points out that under the inserted sub-s. (3A) of s. 82 of the Act of 1963, ......
  • Griffin v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 December 2008
    ...... NOTICE PARTIES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT(STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE) ACT 2006 S13 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT(STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE) ACT 2006 S50A(2)B KSK ENTERPRISES LTD APPLICANT v AN BOARD PLEANALA & 1994 2 IR 128 McCARTHY & ORS v AN BORD PLEANALA 2000 IR 42 MURRAY v AN BORD PLEANALA 2000 IR 58 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 50A(3)(a) ARKLOW HOLIDAYS LTD v BORD PLEANALA 2007 1 ILRM 125 2006/3/413 2006 IEHC 15 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT(STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE) ACT 2006 S50A(9) ......
  • 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 Nbr. 1-2, January 2002
    • 1 January 2002
    ...An Bord Pleanála [2000] 1 I.R. 47; [2000] 2 I.L.R.M. 168; Murray v. An Bord Pleanála [2000] 1 I.R. 58. cf. McCarthy v. An Bord Pleanála [2000] 1 I.R. 42. 130 Judicial Studies Institute Journal moved before the High Court, or even listed for hearing, within the eight week period.19There are ......

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