Peter Sweetman v an Bord Pleanála and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hedigan |
| Docket Number | [2 JR/2015] |
| Date | 15 May 2015 |
BETWEEN
AND
[2015] IEHC 285
THE HIGH COURT
Planning Authority – Substitute consent – Delay pursuant to s. 52 of The Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) – Collateral challenge.
Facts: The defendant sought judicial review to strike out the proceedings followed by the impugned order of the Donegal County Council directing the notice party to apply for 'substituted consent' pursuant to s.261a and Part 10a of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended. The applicant argued that the decision to grant the substituted consent would be unlawful. The applicant contended that the challenge would be delayed pursuant to s. 52 of The Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended).
Mr. Justice Hedigan held that the motion for judicial review to strike out the proceedings followed by the impugned order of the Donegal County Council would be refused. The Court held that the Donegal County Council's decision directing the notice party to apply for 'substituted consent' pursuant to s.261a and Part 10a of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended would be within the criteria and therefore, it would not be unlawful. The Court observed that it would not be a collateral attack on the decision of the Donegal County Council. The Court observed that in that circumstance the issue of delay would not arise.
DECISION of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered the 15th of May 2015
1. This is an application by the second and third respondents state to strike out the judicial proceedings insofar as they seek to challenge certain provisions of the planning legislation. The state contends that the challenge to the planning legislation is inadmissible by reason of delay. The application is based upon the proposition that the applicant is in reality mounting a collateral challenge to the decision or determination of Donegal County Council made on the 29 th June 2012 in which it directed the notice party herein to apply for "substitute consent" pursuant to s.261a and Part 10a of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended. If it is such a collateral challenge then, argue the state, it is well out of time pursuant to s. 52 of the same Act.
2. The applicant argues that not only has he no interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peter Sweetman v an Bord Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General
...Pleanála [2013 No. 356 JR] [2016] IEHC 277 [2016] IEHC 374 [2016] IESCDET 133 Sweetman VI Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála [2015 No. 2 JR] [2015] IEHC 285 [2016] IECA 123 [2016] IESCDET 92 [2018] IESC 1; [2018] 2 I.R. 250 Sweetman VII Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála [2015 No. 545 JR] [2016] IEHC 3......
-
Sweetman v an Bord Pleanála
...the period during which such a challenge was required to be initiated. The High Court (Hedigan J.) ( Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála & ors [2015] IEHC 285) disagreed and dismissed the State's application. From that decision the State appealed to the Court of Appeal. For the reasons set out in......
-
Leahy v O'Keefe
...to attempt to trade out of difficulty is irresponsible per se. However, I do share the view expressed by Peart J. in Re USIT World plc [2015] IEHC 285 that directors in that situation must be careful only to take effective and realistic steps with proper advice and planning towards an achie......