North Westmeath Turbine Action Group & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 126 (01 June 2022)
The High Court erred in addressing the strike-out application before the amendment application and in refusing the amendment. The amendment sought by NWTAG was not a new cause of action but a formal addition of declaratory relief based on existing pleaded grounds. The State Respondents were on notice of the relevant issues from the outset, and no prejudice would arise from permitting the amendment. The statutory time limits did not preclude the amendment as no new grounds or parties were being added. The interests of justice required that the amendment be allowed.
- Citation
- [2022] IECA 126
- Parties
- Appellants: North Westmeath Turbine Action Group and North Westmeath Turbine Action Group Company Limited by Guarantee; Respondents: An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Parties: Westmeath County Council, Coole Windfarm Limited, Greenwire Limited/Greenwire Windfarms Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 01 June 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court Orders Striking Out Proceedings Against State Respondents and Refusing Amendment to Add Declaratory Relief
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; High Court orders set aside
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Amendment of Pleadings, Transposition of EU Directives, Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats Directive, Planning and Development Act, Standing and Parties in Judicial Review
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
North Westmeath Turbine Action Group and North Westmeath Turbine Action Group Company Limited by Guarantee
Appellants
An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and the Attorney General
Respondents
Westmeath County Council, Coole Windfarm Limited, Greenwire Limited/Greenwire Windfarms Limited
Notice Parties
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court Orders Striking Out Proceedings Against State Respondents and Refusing Amendment to Add Declaratory Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in striking out proceedings against the State Respondents for failure to seek relief against them
- 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to permit amendment to add declaratory relief against the State Respondents
- 3 Whether the amendment amounted to a new cause of action or was merely formal
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court erred in addressing the strike-out application before the amendment application and in refusing the amendment. The amendment sought by NWTAG was not a new cause of action but a formal addition of declaratory relief based on existing pleaded grounds. The State Respondents were on notice of the relevant issues from the outset, and no prejudice would arise from permitting the amendment. The statutory time limits did not preclude the amendment as no new grounds or parties were being added. The interests of justice required that the amendment be allowed.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; High Court orders set aside
Orders
- Order striking out proceedings against State Respondents set aside
- Order refusing amendment to add declaratory relief against State Respondents set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment