Tracey & anor v Ireland & Ors [2019] IESC 70 (30 July 2019)

Tracey & anor v Ireland & Ors [2019] IESC 70 (30 July 2019)

The appellants failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against either the State or Dublin City Council. No constitutional right to build arose from an invalid planning permission. The State was not vicariously liable for the actions of Dublin City Council, a separate legal entity. No duty of care was owed by the Council in the exercise of its statutory planning functions. The High Court was correct to dismiss the proceedings, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2019] IESC 70
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Kevin Tracey; Plaintiff/appellant: Karen Tracey; Defendant/respondent: Ireland; Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General; Defendant/respondent: Dublin City Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Negligence, Duty of Care, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Vicarious Liability, Limitation Periods
Administrative Law Tort Law Constitutional Law Planning Permission Negligence Duty of Care Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Tracey

Plaintiff/appellant

Karen Tracey

Plaintiff/appellant

Ireland

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

Dublin City Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to dismiss the proceedings for disclosing no reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the State or Dublin City Council owed a duty of care or was vicariously liable for the alleged losses arising from quashed planning permission
  3. 3 Whether the appellants had a constitutional right to build with invalid planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against either the State or Dublin City Council. No constitutional right to build arose from an invalid planning permission. The State was not vicariously liable for the actions of Dublin City Council, a separate legal entity. No duty of care was owed by the Council in the exercise of its statutory planning functions. The High Court was correct to dismiss the proceedings, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings against all respondents dismissed
  • Appellants to pay respondents' costs when taxed and ascertained