Krikke & Ors v Barranafaddock Sustainability Electricity Ltd (Approved) [2020] IESC 42 (17 July 2020)

Krikke & Ors v Barranafaddock Sustainability Electricity Ltd (Approved) [2020] IESC 42 (17 July 2020)

Given the changed circumstances, including delays in the substitute consent process and the risk of the High Court order becoming indefinite, the Supreme Court held that the stay should remain in place, allowing the Court of Appeal to determine the matter after the substantive appeal. The public interest in enforcement of planning law is significant, but the risk of injustice to the developer from a potentially indefinite restraint, in the absence of a timely substitute consent process, justifies maintaining the stay.

Citation
[2020] IESC 42
Parties
Applicants/respondents: Ronald Krikke, Pia Umans, Seán Harris, Catherine Harris, Patrick Kenneally, Caroline Kenneally, Kenneth Geary; Respondent/appellant: Barranafaddock Sustainability Electricity Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Appeal in Planning Enforcement Proceedings / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Stay on the High Court order restraining operation of the windfarm to remain in place; Court of Appeal to determine further action after substantive appeal.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Enforcement of Planning Law, Substitute Consent, Public Interest in Environmental Protection
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Interlocutory Injunctions Stay of Execution Enforcement of Planning Law Substitute Consent Public Interest in Environmental Protection

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Krikke, Pia Umans, Seán Harris, Catherine Harris, Patrick Kenneally, Caroline Kenneally, Kenneth Geary

Applicants/respondents

Barranafaddock Sustainability Electricity Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay Pending Appeal in Planning Enforcement Proceedings / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay should be granted on a High Court order restraining operation of a windfarm pending appeal
  2. 2 How to balance risk of injustice between parties in planning enforcement cases
  3. 3 Appropriate weight to public interest in enforcement of planning law versus developer's financial loss

Ratio Decidendi

Given the changed circumstances, including delays in the substitute consent process and the risk of the High Court order becoming indefinite, the Supreme Court held that the stay should remain in place, allowing the Court of Appeal to determine the matter after the substantive appeal. The public interest in enforcement of planning law is significant, but the risk of injustice to the developer from a potentially indefinite restraint, in the absence of a timely substitute consent process, justifies maintaining the stay.

Court Disposition

Stay on the High Court order restraining operation of the windfarm to remain in place; Court of Appeal to determine further action after substantive appeal.

Orders

  • Stay on High Court order maintained
  • Court of Appeal to decide on further orders after substantive appeal