Casey v Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government & Ors (Approved) [2021] IESC 42 (16 July 2021)

Casey v Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government & Ors (Approved) [2021] IESC 42 (16 July 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in declining jurisdiction based on an unpleaded issue regarding publication requirements. The proceedings were properly constituted under Order 84 RSC, as s. 21B does not create a separate statutory scheme but limits challenges to judicial review. The mandatory publication requirements in s. 21A of the Foreshore Act 1933 apply to all relevant applications, including the licence in question, but failure to publish does not invalidate the licence; rather, it may affect the time limits for challenge. The matter was remitted to the High Court for determination of the substantive judicial review grounds.

Citation
[2021] IESC 42
Parties
Applicant/respondent: John Casey; Respondent/appellant: The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government; Respondent/appellant: The Minister for State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government; Respondent/appellant: Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party: BioAtlantis Aquamarine Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed; matter remitted to High Court for determination of substantive judicial review.
Legal Topics
Foreshore Licensing, Statutory Interpretation, Procedural Fairness, Standing in Judicial Review, Publication Requirements, Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Appropriate Assessment (aa)
Administrative Law Environmental Law Judicial Review Foreshore Licensing Statutory Interpretation Procedural Fairness Standing in Judicial Review Publication Requirements +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 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Casey

Applicant/respondent

The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government

Respondent/appellant

The Minister for State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government

Respondent/appellant

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondent/appellant

BioAtlantis Aquamarine Limited

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in declining jurisdiction to determine the judicial review due to unpleaded publication requirements under the Foreshore Act 1933
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were improperly constituted by being brought under Order 84 RSC rather than s. 21B of the Foreshore Act 1933
  3. 3 Whether the mandatory publication requirements in s. 21A of the Foreshore Act 1933 applied to the grant of the licence

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in declining jurisdiction based on an unpleaded issue regarding publication requirements. The proceedings were properly constituted under Order 84 RSC, as s. 21B does not create a separate statutory scheme but limits challenges to judicial review. The mandatory publication requirements in s. 21A of the Foreshore Act 1933 apply to all relevant applications, including the licence in question, but failure to publish does not invalidate the licence; rather, it may affect the time limits for challenge. The matter was remitted to the High Court for determination of the substantive judicial review grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed; matter remitted to High Court for determination of substantive judicial review.

Orders

  • The appeal of the State parties is allowed.
  • The cross-appeal of Mr Casey is allowed.