Sweetman v An Bord Pleanala & ors [2018] IESC 1 (23 January 2018)

Sweetman v An Bord Pleanala & ors [2018] IESC 1 (23 January 2018)

The collateral attack doctrine should only prevent substantive cases where it is clear that an earlier decision is intended to be final and definitive regarding the issue in question. In this case, the scheme does not clearly specify at which stage exceptionality must be assessed, and resolving this requires consideration of substantive issues. Therefore, Mr. Sweetman's challenge is not an impermissible collateral attack at this stage, and the substantive proceedings should go ahead.

Citation
[2018] IESC 1
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Peter Sweetman; Respondent: An Bord Pleanala; Respondents/appellants: Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party: Thomas Houston; Amicus Curiae: An Taisce
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Collateral Attack, Substituted Consent, Planning Permission, Environmental Impact Assessment, Legal Certainty
Administrative Law Environmental Law European Union Law Collateral Attack Substituted Consent Planning Permission Environmental Impact Assessment Legal Certainty

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Sweetman

Applicant/respondent

An Bord Pleanala

Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents/appellants

Thomas Houston

Notice Party

An Taisce

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Sweetman's challenge to the Board's decision constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the earlier decision of Donegal County Council
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal's refusal to dismiss Mr. Sweetman's application as against the State should be overturned

Ratio Decidendi

The collateral attack doctrine should only prevent substantive cases where it is clear that an earlier decision is intended to be final and definitive regarding the issue in question. In this case, the scheme does not clearly specify at which stage exceptionality must be assessed, and resolving this requires consideration of substantive issues. Therefore, Mr. Sweetman's challenge is not an impermissible collateral attack at this stage, and the substantive proceedings should go ahead.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Substantive proceedings to go ahead
  • Decision of High Court and Court of Appeal upheld