Clancy & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) (Rev1) [2023] IEHC 233 (08 May 2023)

Clancy & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) (Rev1) [2023] IEHC 233 (08 May 2023)

The applicants' application for costs protection regarding proceedings against the council (except insofar as dependent on success against the respondents) is not covered by any rule of costs protection, as the statutory scheme for compulsory acquisition is not legislation giving effect to relevant EU environmental directives nor national law relating to the environment. The applicants may issue a motion for costs protection against the respondents, which will be costs-protected for the purpose of that motion. Any further costs protection issues involving the council will be considered only if the applicants succeed in obtaining costs protection against the respondents.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 233
Parties
Applicants: John Clancy and Sheena Clancy; First Named Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Second Named Respondent: Clare County Council; Third and Fourth Named Respondents: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application Regarding Costs Protection Prior to Leave Hearing
Outcome
Application for costs protection against the council refused; liberty to bring motion for costs protection against respondents granted; no order as to costs for present application; costs protection for proposed motion against respondents granted.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Order, Costs Protection, Planning and Development, EU Directives, Aarhus Convention, Access to Justice
Administrative Law Planning Law Constitutional Law Environmental Law Compulsory Purchase Order Costs Protection Planning and Development EU Directives +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Clancy and Sheena Clancy

Applicants

An Bord Pleanála

First Named Respondent

Clare County Council

Second Named Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Third and Fourth Named Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application Regarding Costs Protection Prior to Leave Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to costs protection for their application challenging a compulsory purchase order under Irish and EU law.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory scheme for compulsory acquisition and confirmation of the CPO is inconsistent with constitutional and EU law rights.
  3. 3 Whether the process for seeking costs protection itself is costs-protected.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' application for costs protection regarding proceedings against the council (except insofar as dependent on success against the respondents) is not covered by any rule of costs protection, as the statutory scheme for compulsory acquisition is not legislation giving effect to relevant EU environmental directives nor national law relating to the environment. The applicants may issue a motion for costs protection against the respondents, which will be costs-protected for the purpose of that motion. Any further costs protection issues involving the council will be considered only if the applicants succeed in obtaining costs protection against the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application for costs protection against the council refused; liberty to bring motion for costs protection against respondents granted; no order as to costs for present application; costs protection for proposed motion against respondents granted.

Orders

  • Declaration that applicants' application for costs protection against the council is not covered by any rule of costs protection.
  • Liberty to issue motion for costs protection against respondents, to be heard before leave application.