Taaffe v Louth County Council
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Birmingham |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] IEHC 314 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 25 June 2013 |
[2013] IEHC 314
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
RSC O.84 r20
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S13
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S19
KEEGAN v GARDA SIOCHANA OMBUDSMAN CMSN UNREP SUPREME 1.5.2012 2012/20/5800 2012 IESC 29
FLEURY v MIN FOR AGRICULTURE UNREP HEDIGAN 12.12.2012 2012/15/4306 2012 IEHC 543
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S153(2)
Practice and procedure - Planning law - Judicial review - Certiorari - Addition of grounds - Enforcement notice- Time limits - Mala fides - Order 84 rule 20 Rules of the Superior Courts
Facts: The proceedings related to an application to amend a statement of grounds in proceedings where the applicant had sought leave by way of certiorari to quash an enforcement notice. The applicant alleged that the respondent had no jurisdiction to issue the enforcement notice. The applicant sought to add thirteen grounds, relating broadly to the respondent”s engagement with her, the operation of time limits, mala fides and the provision of documents which were redacted.
Held by Birmingham J. that the Court would permit the addition of a ground as to the operation of a time limit and mala fides and the Court would permit a single additional ground as to blank spaces redacted. The rest would be refused.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Birmingham delivered the 25th day of June 2013
1. The matter before the court is an application pursuant to O. 84, r.20 by the applicant seeking to amend a statement of grounds by including additional grounds.
2. The background to the application is that on 2 nd March, 2012, the applicant obtained leave to seek an order by way of certiorari quashing an enforcement notice that had been issued by the respondent dated 9 th January, 2012 and also at the same time an order granting leave to seek an order by way of certiorari quashing an invoice raised in relation to enforcement costs incurred by the respondent.
3. Leave to seek the reliefs sought was granted on six grounds. The broad outline of the case made by the applicant was that the respondent had no jurisdiction to issue the enforcement notice in question as the applicant did not own or control the premises in question, had ceased to use the structure at a point in time three months prior to the issue of the enforcement notice and that an established use existed in relation to the structure.
4. The notice at issue related to the alleged use by the applicant of a portacabin type structure as a solicitors office at Rathnestin, Tallanstown, Dundalk, County Louth and the carrying out of a professional practice from there.
5. The applicant now seeks to add thirteen additional grounds to the original six. The applicant has stressed that there is no request to expand on the reliefs that are being sought or to enlarge or amend the reliefs being sought in any way.
6. It is convenient to attempt to group the proposed additional grounds. On that basis, the proposed new reliefs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 could be seen as raising issues in relation to the adequacy of the investigation carried out by the respondent and the nature of the enquiries conducted by the respondent prior to the issue of the warning letter and subsequent enforcement notice. Section 13 is a stand alone ground and relates to an alleged failure to issue the enforcement notice within what is described as the statutory twelve week time limit. Grounds 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 raise points in relation to the fact that the complaint that triggered the respondent's interest was an anonymous note. Section 19 alleges that the respondent acted with mala fides against the applicant because she had acted as solicitor for a named client in what was described as "highly contested" criminal proceedings brought by Louth County Council.
7. The approach to be taken to applications to extend upon the terms on which leave to seek judicial review has been obtained has been considered in a number of cases in recent times. In particular, by reference to the Supreme Court decision in Keegan v. Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission [2012] IESC 29 (Unreported, Supreme Court, 1 st May, 2012), Hedigan J. in Fleury v. Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development [2012] IEHC 543 (Unreported, High Court, Hedigan J., 12 th December, 2012) distilled and summarized the applicable principles. He did so in these terms:-
(i) The court should have regard to the interests of justice.
(ii) The arguability of the points sought to be raised should be considered.
(iii) There should be good reason for allowing the late amendment, e.g. the circumstances should be exceptional.
(iv) The court should consider whether the new facts are new facts that arose since leave was granted.
(v) The court should consider whether the proposed amendment would be a significant enlargement of the proceedings already in being.
(vi) The court should consider whether the proposed amendment would prejudice the respondent.
(vii) The court should bear in mind the true nature of judicial review noting that the leave stage of judicial review is a filtering mechanism, The court should consider the over arching requirement of promptness.
(viii) The relevance of the ground should be considered.
(ix) Every case depends on its own facts.
I propose to address the proposed new grounds having regard to these principles and do so having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Keegan and in particular to the judgment of Fennelly J.
8. So far as the adequacy of investigation grounds are concerned, it may be said that there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Neill v Kerry County Council
...of a condition in a planning permission, which is the situation here. 7 Furthermore, Birmingham J. in Taaffe v. Louth County Council [2013] IEHC 314 held that an anonymous planning complaint was valid (para. 13). This is inconsistent with the notion that the motive of the complainant is rel......