Killross Properties Ltd -v- Electricity Supply Board [2016] IECA 207 (11 July 2016)

Killross Properties Ltd -v- Electricity Supply Board [2016] IECA 207 (11 July 2016)

The High Court cannot grant relief under s. 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 where there is an otherwise valid s. 5 determination that the development in question is exempted development; such a determination precludes a finding of unauthorised development and cannot be challenged collaterally in s. 160 proceedings.

Citation
[2016] IECA 207
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Killross Properties Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Electricity Supply Board
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Exempted Development, Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Section 5 Determinations, Section 160 Proceedings, Collateral Attack, Jurisdiction of Courts
Planning Law Administrative Law Exempted Development Judicial Review Planning Permission Section 5 Determinations Section 160 Proceedings Collateral Attack +1 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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Killross Properties Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

Electricity Supply Board

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can, in s. 160 proceedings, go behind a s. 5 determination that certain works constitute exempted development and do not require planning permission.
  2. 2 Whether a s. 160 application can be used as a collateral challenge to a s. 5 determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court cannot grant relief under s. 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 where there is an otherwise valid s. 5 determination that the development in question is exempted development; such a determination precludes a finding of unauthorised development and cannot be challenged collaterally in s. 160 proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The decision of Hedigan J. in the High Court is affirmed.