Clinton -v- An Bord Pleanána [2007] IESC 19 (02 May 2007)
The Supreme Court held that the compulsory acquisition of the applicant's property for the statutory purpose of regeneration and development of O'Connell Street was lawful under the Planning and Development Act 2000. It was not necessary for the council to specify a detailed development proposal, as the statutory purpose of regeneration was sufficiently particular. The procedures followed respected constitutional property rights, and the CPO was proportionate and justified by the public interest.
- Citation
- [2007] IESC 19
- Parties
- Applicant/appellant: Paul Clinton; Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Respondent: Dublin City Council; Respondent: Attorney General; Notice Party: Richard Quirke; Notice Party: Dublin Pool and Juke Box Company Limited; Notice Party: Baycross Developments Limited; Notice Party: Carrolls of Dublin Limited; Notice Party: Colm Carroll; Notice Party: Regan Developments Limited; Notice Party: Daniel Troy and Christopher Troy trading as Troy Brothers; Notice Party: Doyles Stores Limited; Notice Party: F. X. Buckley Limited; Notice Party: Stephen Ross trading as Industria; Notice Party: Simon Hart Limited; Notice Party: John Corcoran; Notice Party: James Cousins Limited; Notice Party: Martina Investments Limited; Notice Party: Peter Slattery Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 02 May 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (from High Court, Judicial Review) / Supreme Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Compulsory Purchase Orders, Interpretation of Planning and Development Act 2000, Property Rights, Judicial Review, Urban Regeneration
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Paul Clinton
Applicant/appellant
An Bord Pleanála
Respondent
Dublin City Council
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Richard Quirke
Notice Party
Dublin Pool and Juke Box Company Limited
Notice Party
Baycross Developments Limited
Notice Party
Carrolls of Dublin Limited
Notice Party
Colm Carroll
Notice Party
Regan Developments Limited
Notice Party
Daniel Troy and Christopher Troy trading as Troy Brothers
Notice Party
Doyles Stores Limited
Notice Party
F. X. Buckley Limited
Notice Party
Stephen Ross trading as Industria
Notice Party
Simon Hart Limited
Notice Party
John Corcoran
Notice Party
James Cousins Limited
Notice Party
Martina Investments Limited
Notice Party
Peter Slattery Limited
Notice Party
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from High Court, Judicial Review) / Supreme Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a compulsory purchase order (CPO) can be confirmed for 'development purposes' without a specific development proposal under the Planning and Development Act 2000.
- 2 Whether the statutory purpose of 'development' is sufficiently particular to justify compulsory acquisition.
- 3 Whether the procedures and reasoning of the acquiring authority and An Bord Pleanála complied with constitutional property rights.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the compulsory acquisition of the applicant's property for the statutory purpose of regeneration and development of O'Connell Street was lawful under the Planning and Development Act 2000. It was not necessary for the council to specify a detailed development proposal, as the statutory purpose of regeneration was sufficiently particular. The procedures followed respected constitutional property rights, and the CPO was proportionate and justified by the public interest.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed in respect of all grounds except the constitutional challenge, which may be pursued separately if desired.
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