or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court refuses application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal by environmentalist who was refused, in substantive proceedings, leave to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of a decision not to grant planning permission for a civic plaza,on the grounds that: there is no uncertainty in Irish law (and its interplay with EU law) on the question of standing to bring planning and development judicial review proceedings; any appeal would not have the effect of transcending the very specific facts of the applicant's case; and it would not be desirable in the public interest to permit the applicant to appeal on the grounds proposed as to do so would constitute a monumental waste of court time and resources.
Judicial review - planning and development - application for leave to appeal to court of appeal - section 50A - whether principal judgment should be amended to reflect applicant's contention that court decided issue of standing only without recourse to any determination on leave to bring judicial review proceedings - no basis to amend judgment - no point or points of law of exceptional public importance - not desirable in public interest that an appeal should be taken - court dealt with issue of standing in isolation without embarking upon merits of grounds of challenge with agreement of applicant and respondents - court unsatisfied applicant had sufficient interest in matter - no material difference between court deciding not to grant leave and court refusing to grant such leave - application to amend refused - relevant legal principles applicable to grant of leave to appeal - glancré principles - proposed points of law of exceptional public importance - whether an uncertainty in application of EU law concerning standing in environmental cases - applicant's stated non-participation in planning process and its effect on standing - non-participation merely one of facts or factors taken into consideration - absence of uncertainty in law - degree of conformity of Irish national standing rules with EU law - interpretation of Irish national standing rules with EU Directive 2011/92 - whether EU law requires court to uphold applicant's standing to bring these proceedings - points fail to satisfy glancré principles - hypothetical - resolution of proposed points would not transcend facts of case - conclusions on standing very fact specific - no real basis suggested that analysis contained in principal judgment is wrong or whether there was a misapplication of certain standing principles - not desirable in public interest that an appeal should be brought to remedy perceived uncertainty - monumental waste of court time and resources
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.