White & Anor v. Dublin City Council & Ors [2004] IESC 35 (10 June 2004)

White & Anor v. Dublin City Council & Ors [2004] IESC 35 (10 June 2004)

Section 82(3B)(a)(i) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, as amended, is unconstitutional because its absolute two-month limitation period, with no provision for extension even where the applicant could not have known of the decision due to the unlawful act of the planning authority, constitutes an unjust and unreasonable restriction on the constitutionally protected right of access to the courts. The legislative balance struck is so contrary to reason and fairness as to amount to an unjust attack on constitutional rights.

Citation
[2004] IESC 35
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Maud White; Applicant/respondent: Michael White; Respondent/appellant: Dublin City Council; Respondent/appellant: Ireland; Respondent/appellant: The Attorney General; Notice Party/appellant: Kevin Tracey
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. High Court declaration of unconstitutionality affirmed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Limitation Periods, Right of Access to Courts, Planning Permission, Statutory Interpretation, Separation of Powers
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Limitation Periods Right of Access to Courts Planning Permission Statutory Interpretation +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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maud White

Applicant/respondent

Michael White

Applicant/respondent

Dublin City Council

Respondent/appellant

Ireland

Respondent/appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent/appellant

Kevin Tracey

Notice Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 82(3B)(a)(i) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 (as amended) is unconstitutional for imposing an absolute two-month limitation period for judicial review of planning decisions without provision for extension.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a saver clause for persons unaware of the decision due to no fault of their own violates the constitutional right of access to the courts.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 82(3B)(a)(i) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, as amended, is unconstitutional because its absolute two-month limitation period, with no provision for extension even where the applicant could not have known of the decision due to the unlawful act of the planning authority, constitutes an unjust and unreasonable restriction on the constitutionally protected right of access to the courts. The legislative balance struck is so contrary to reason and fairness as to amount to an unjust attack on constitutional rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. High Court declaration of unconstitutionality affirmed.

Orders

  • Section 82(3B)(a)(i) declared repugnant to Article 40.3 of the Constitution.
  • Order of certiorari quashing the planning permission granted to Kevin Tracey.