Steven O'Riordan v an Bord Pleanála

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Richard Humphreys
Judgment Date21 January 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] IEHC 1
Date21 January 2021
Docket Number[2020 No. 806 JR]
CourtHigh Court
Between
Steven O'Riordan
Applicant
and
An Bord Pleanála
Respondent

and

MKN Investments Limited
And Caltrack Limited Trading as Omni Park Shopping Centre Consortium
Notice Parties

[2021] IEHC 1

[2020 No. 806 JR]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on Thursday the 21st day of January, 2021

1

At a board meeting held on 25th August, 2020, An Bord Pleanála decided to grant planning permission to the notice parties for the construction of 324 apartments in three blocks, an 81 bedroom aparthotel, a crèche, a café/restaurant/retail unit and associated development to the northeast of the Omni Park Shopping Centre in Dublin 9. That outcome was embodied in a board decision dated 1st September, 2020, and the formal grant of permission was made by order of the board on 3rd September, 2020.

2

A letter was issued to the applicant (who had been an objector) on 4th September, 2020, informing him of the decision. That was received on 7th September, 2020. The letter notified the applicant of the eight-week period to bring an application for judicial review.

3

The applicant first endeavoured to make the application for leave to seek judicial review on 30th October, 2020 by contacting the Courts Service to seek to lodge papers. Ultimately a statement of grounds was filed on 2nd November, 2020 and the matter was listed before Meenan J. on 16th November, 2020, was adjourned for a week, and was ultimately transferred to the Commercial Planning and Strategic Infrastructure Development List on 26th November, 2020. On the latter date I ordered that leave would be on notice including to the (at that stage proposed) notice parties.

4

On the adjourned date of 10th December, 2020, I formally joined the notice parties and directed the applicant to serve a motion under s. 50A(2)(c) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 seeking leave on notice as well as seeking an extension of time together with an amended statement of grounds and supporting affidavit. The motion was not issued, but no point is actually taken on that.

5

On the adjourned date of 21st December, 2020, I heard the application for an extension of time. I have received helpful submissions from the applicant Mr. Steven O'Riordan, pro se, from Ms. Aoife Carroll B.L. for the board and from Mr. Brian Foley S.C. (with Mr. Jarlath Ryan B.L.) for the notice parties. Having heard the matter, I informed the parties of the order being made and indicated that reasons would be given later.

The test for extension of time
6

Section 50(6) of the 2000 Act requires that an application for judicial review to which the section relates be made within a period of eight weeks beginning on the date of the decision in question. Subsection (8) provides that the court may extend that time, but only if:

(a). there is good and sufficient reason for doing so; and

(b). the circumstances that resulted in the failure to make the application for leave within the period so provided were outside the control of the applicant for the extension.

7

While there was some debate about both limbs of the test, in the present case the focus has really been more on s. 50(8)(b) and on whether the circumstances in question were outside the control of the applicant.

The impact on the rights of private law actors
8

As distinct from an extension of time in a purely public law or human rights context, where the only other actors are public law entities, a planning judicial review potentially causes prejudice to private law actors such as the developers here. That reality of prejudice necessitates a stricter approach to extension of time. The key point was identified by Barr J. in ( [2020] IEHC 423 Reidy v. An Bord Pleanála Unreported, High Court, 31st July, 2020), at para. 39, that “[i]n essence, strict time limits were imposed so as to give certainty to those who had obtained lawful permissions under the relevant statutory code to embark on development or other activity, safe in the knowledge that once the relatively short time period expired, they were free to proceed on the basis of the lawful permission that they had obtained”.

9

Clarke J., as he then, was in Kelly v. Leitrim County Council [2005] 2 I.R. 404 at 412–413, noted that among the relevant factors for extension of time were “[t]he question of whether third party rights may be affected” and “the nature of the issues involved” including human rights consequences in a deportation context, citing C.S. v. Minister for Justice [2004] IESC 44, [2005] 1 I.L.R.M. 81. Those elements reinforce the point that the purely human rights or entirely public law context is different to one such as planning law, where a significant impact on private law third parties may be anticipated.

The time period does not begin when the decision is notified
10

It is clear from Reidy at para. 44 per Barr J. that the time period for the purposes of the 2000 Act is calculated from the date of the decision itself and not from the date the applicant finds out about the decision (see also Kelly v. Leitrim County Council at para. 9). It may be that in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Carrownagowan Concern Group and Others v an Bord Pleanála and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 27 October 2023
    ...a context where there is prejudice to private law actors, not a purely human rights or public law context: O'Riordan v. An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 1, [2021] 1 JIC 73 . The inevitable conclusion is that the leave order for reliefs 12 and 16 should be discharged. Reliefs 14 and 15 — Claim u......
  • Save The South Leinster way and Another v an Bord Pleanála and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 October 2023
    ...situation where there is prejudice to private law actors, not a purely human rights or public law context: O'Riordan v. An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 1, [2021] 1 JIC 19 . Insofar as the applicants rely on cases on limitation periods such as Poole v. O'Sullivan [1993] 1 I.R. 484, [1993] I.L.R......
  • Dunne v Kildare County Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 17 February 2023
    ...limitation period by a minimal amount is too much without good and sufficient reason being established (see O'Riordan v. An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 1, ( [2021] 1 JIC 2102 Unreported, High Court, 21st January, 2021)). At the same time, one must bear in mind that the time-limit only applies......
  • Corajio Unlimited Company Trading as Mr. Price Branded Bargains v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 29 June 2023
    ...and Barniville J, in SC SYM Fotovoltaic Energy SRL v. Mayo County Council (No.1) [2018] IEHC 20. In O'Riordan v. v. An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 1, Humphreys J. (at para. 16) noted “ the natural human tendency to overlook de minimis errors and short delays, but it is clear in the planning c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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