High Court dismisses judicial review where planning appeal jurisdiction expired before decision notification. Applicant loses due to prior withdrawal of appeals.
Irland (IE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe High Court dismissed the applicant's judicial review application, holding that An Bord Pleanála lost jurisdiction once the Michels' appeals were withdrawn before the decision's effective date. The court found the facts undisputed and adopted the reasoning of MacMenamin J. in the precedent case Urrinbridge Limited v. An Bord Pleanála. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the orders sought in their notice of motion.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generierts. 28(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000; Where an appeal is withdrawn before determination, the planning authority loses jurisdiction to determine the appeal, rendering any subsequent decision invalid.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertZitierte Rechtsprechung
KI-generiertVolltext
Neutral Citation [2013] IEHC 34
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
[2011 No. 364 J.R.]
BETWEEN
ECOLOGICAL DATA CENTRES LIMITED
APPLICANT
AND
AN BORD PLEANÁLA
RESPONDENT
AND
WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL, NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY, CLAUS MICHEL, IRIS MICHEL, MARC MICHEL, ALAN BUTLER AND
ÁINE BURKE
NOTICE PARTIES
Judgment of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered on 22nd day of January, 2013.
1. The facts are not in dispute in this case. I have been referred to the decision of MacMenamin J. in the case of Urrinbridge Limited
v. An Bord Pleanála & Ors. [2011] IEHC 400. This case is indistinguishable from that case in its decisive point, i.e. the determination of
the application before An Bord Pleanála took effect when notice of the decision was first sent.
2. If that decision is followed in this case, then the applicant must succeed because the appeals of the three Michels were withdrawn
on the 16th March, 2011 whilst the appeal had not yet been determined. If Urrinbridge is followed, that determination did not occur
until at the very earliest the 21st March, 2011. At that time, the appeals having been withdrawn, An Bord Pleanála no longer had
jurisdiction to determine the appeals.
3. Two questions arise –
(a) Does this Court agree with the Urrinbridge decision?
(b) If it does not, should it nonetheless follow that decision based on the established principles of stare decisis between
courts of equivalent jurisdiction as set out by Clarke J. in Kadri v. The Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2012] IESC 27.
4. I have read the decision of MacMenamin J. carefully and have both read and listened to the very helpful submissions of both sides.
I have come to the conclusion that the exhaustive analysis by the learned Judge is a thorough and complete one and that the
decision in the judgment is correct. In fact I do not believe there is anything that I can usefully add to that judgment and I am
content to gratefully adopt the reasoning contained therein. This being so, the stare decisis issue need not be addressed by me.
5. In the result, the decisive point of Urrinbridge being dispositive of the issue in this case, I find that the applicant is entitled to
orders in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of its notice of motion dated the 12th May, 2012.