Doorly v Corrigan & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 6 (21 January 2022)

Doorly v Corrigan & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 6 (21 January 2022)

The respondents failed to discharge the burden of proof that they were entitled to the tree-felling exemption and that the works did not materially affect the character of a protected structure; the trial judge erred in the application of the burden of proof.

Citation
[2022] IECA 6
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Gerard Doorly; Respondent: Ciara Corrigan; Respondent: Padraig Corrigan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Tree Felling Exemption, Burden of Proof, Protected Structures, Remediation Orders
Planning Law Environmental Law Tree Felling Exemption Burden of Proof Protected Structures Remediation Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerard Doorly

Applicant/appellant

Ciara Corrigan

Respondent

Padraig Corrigan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents proved entitlement to tree-felling exemption under planning law
  2. 2 Whether burden of proof was correctly applied by trial judge
  3. 3 Whether tree-felling materially affected a protected structure

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to discharge the burden of proof that they were entitled to the tree-felling exemption and that the works did not materially affect the character of a protected structure; the trial judge erred in the application of the burden of proof.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • remediation of the affected woodlands as proposed by the Court