Doorly v Corrigan & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 6_2 (21 January 2022)

Doorly v Corrigan & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 6_2 (21 January 2022)

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly identified the legal principles regarding the burden of proof and exemption, but may have misapplied them in practice. The court clarified that the onus to prove exemption from planning requirements lies with the respondents. However, the evidence did not establish that the tree-felling constituted unauthorised development requiring EIA or affecting a protected structure, and the reliefs sought were refused.

Citation
[2022] IECA 6_2
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Gerard Doorly; Respondent: Ciara Corrigan; Respondent: Padraig Corrigan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Tree Felling, Environmental Impact Assessment, Protected Structures, Burden of Proof, Planning Injunction
Planning Law Environmental Law Property Law Unauthorised Development Tree Felling Environmental Impact Assessment Protected Structures Burden of Proof +1 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerard Doorly

Applicant/appellant

Ciara Corrigan

Respondent

Padraig Corrigan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tree-felling at Claremount Demesne constituted unauthorised development under the Planning and Development Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether environmental impact assessment (EIA) was required for the works
  3. 3 Whether the works affected a protected structure or its attendant grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly identified the legal principles regarding the burden of proof and exemption, but may have misapplied them in practice. The court clarified that the onus to prove exemption from planning requirements lies with the respondents. However, the evidence did not establish that the tree-felling constituted unauthorised development requiring EIA or affecting a protected structure, and the reliefs sought were refused.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order refusing reliefs affirmed
  • No injunctive relief granted