Article 26 and the Planning and Development Bill 1999, Re [2000] IESC 20; [2000] 2 IR 321; [2001] 1 ILRM 81 (28th August, 2000)

Article 26 and the Planning and Development Bill 1999, Re [2000] IESC 20; [2000] 2 IR 321; [2001] 1 ILRM 81 (28th August, 2000)

Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is not repugnant to the Constitution. The provisions for compulsory acquisition and compensation are proportionate and justified in the interests of the common good and social justice. The distinctions drawn are rational and not arbitrary, and the delegation of discretion to planning authorities is sufficiently guided by legislative principles and policies.

Citation
[2001] 1 ILRM 81
Parties
Referrer: President Mary McAleese; Respondent: Attorney General; Amicus Curiae: Counsel assigned by the Court
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Article 26 Reference (constitutional Review) / Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Reference
Outcome
Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is not repugnant to the Constitution.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Planning and Development, Affordable Housing, Delegation of Legislative Power, Equality Before the Law, Compensation for Property, Social Justice
Constitutional Law Property Law Administrative Law Compulsory Acquisition Planning and Development Affordable Housing Delegation of Legislative Power Equality Before the Law +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 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

President Mary McAleese

Referrer

Attorney General

Respondent

Counsel assigned by the Court

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Article 26 Reference (constitutional Review) / Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is repugnant to the Constitution, specifically regarding property rights (Articles 40.3.2 and 43), equality before the law (Article 40.1), and the delegation of legislative power (Article 15.2.1)

Ratio Decidendi

Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is not repugnant to the Constitution. The provisions for compulsory acquisition and compensation are proportionate and justified in the interests of the common good and social justice. The distinctions drawn are rational and not arbitrary, and the delegation of discretion to planning authorities is sufficiently guided by legislative principles and policies.

Court Disposition

Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is not repugnant to the Constitution.