|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses application to revisit certain findings made in an earlier written judgment delivered in planning injunction proceedings brought by one of the respondents, and confirms the previous orders, on the grounds that: (a) the respondent failed to demonstrate any “strong reasons” for revisiting the principal judgment; (b) there was no basis for alleging that fair procedures were not applied in this case in circumstances where the respondent was represented by experienced senior and junior counsel; and (c) the respondent cannot seek to be released from the proceedings post-judgment when counsel on his behalf expressly indicated that they were not seeking to have him removed during the course of the hearing.
Application by one of the defendants to revisit certain findings made in an earlier written judgment delivered in these proceedings - the proceedings were instituted pursuant to section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 - the applicant sought to restrain the carrying out of unauthorised retail development at three premises within its functional area - the applicant was successful in its application and a written judgment was provided - the court directed that the unauthorised retail use cease immediately from midnight that night and that certain unauthorised signage be removed within 72 hours of that date - the fourth named respondent sought that the Court revisit two aspects of the principal judgment - he sought that the Court revisit his description of his affidavit evidence as “evasive" and also his joinder to the proceedings as a respondent - whether there were “exceptional circumstances” or “strong reasons” which warranted the Court reviewing its decision - application refused - principal judgment confirmed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
