Hynes v. An Bord Pleanala [1998] IEHC 127 (30th July, 1998)

Hynes v. An Bord Pleanala [1998] IEHC 127 (30th July, 1998)

The decision of An Bord Pleanala is not invalidated by procedural defects in the Planning Authority's process or by minor misstatements in the planning application regarding ownership, provided there was sufficient interest and consent, and no deliberate attempt to mislead. The regulations are directory, not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] IEHC 127
Parties
Applicant: Applicant (Mrs O'Murchú); First Respondent: An Bord Pleanala; Second Respondent: Patrick Joyce (the Developer); Third Respondent: Galway Corporation
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Material Contravention, Consent of Landowner, Procedural Irregularity
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Permission Judicial Review Material Contravention Consent of Landowner Procedural Irregularity

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant (Mrs O'Murchú)

Applicant

An Bord Pleanala

First Respondent

Patrick Joyce (the Developer)

Second Respondent

Galway Corporation

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning application was invalid due to misstatement of ownership and lack of proper consent for inclusion of Corporation land
  2. 2 Whether procedural defects in the Planning Authority's process vitiated the jurisdiction of An Bord Pleanala
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of Article 18(1)(d) of the 1994 Regulations are mandatory or directory

Ratio Decidendi

The decision of An Bord Pleanala is not invalidated by procedural defects in the Planning Authority's process or by minor misstatements in the planning application regarding ownership, provided there was sufficient interest and consent, and no deliberate attempt to mislead. The regulations are directory, not mandatory, in this context.

Court Disposition

Application refused