O'Connell v. Dungarven Energy Ltd [2000] IEHC 101 (27th February, 2000)

O'Connell v. Dungarven Energy Ltd [2000] IEHC 101 (27th February, 2000)

No development had commenced beyond exempted demolition; however, the Respondent breached condition 11 by failing to give notice and employ an archaeologist prior to site operations. An injunction is granted restraining further site operations until compliance with condition 11. Variations to the development were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] IEHC 101
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Planning Injunction Application / Judgment on Application for Injunction and Related Motions
Outcome
Injunction granted in part; other relief refused; motions struck out with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission Conditions, Injunctions, Exempted Development, Archaeological Requirements, Variation of Planning Permission
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Conditions Injunctions Exempted Development Archaeological Requirements Variation of Planning Permission

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Injunction Application / Judgment on Application for Injunction and Related Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether development commenced in breach of planning permission
  2. 2 Whether pre-development conditions were breached
  3. 3 Whether demolition works constituted exempted development

Ratio Decidendi

No development had commenced beyond exempted demolition; however, the Respondent breached condition 11 by failing to give notice and employ an archaeologist prior to site operations. An injunction is granted restraining further site operations until compliance with condition 11. Variations to the development were immaterial and within the scope of planning permission. Injunctive relief for other alleged breaches is refused as the development had not commenced.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted in part; other relief refused; motions struck out with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Respondent restrained from continuing site operations relating to the proposed development except in compliance with condition 11 (four weeks' notice to Planning Authority and archaeological assessment/report).
  • Respondent permitted to demolish to ground level the buildings known as Niro III, Niro IV, and CHP building.