Goss & ors -v- O'Toole & ors [2013] IEHC 570 (17 December 2013)

Goss & ors -v- O'Toole & ors [2013] IEHC 570 (17 December 2013)

The split-level car park is an unauthorised development. No exceptional circumstances exist to justify refusal of injunctive relief. The respondents have a history of unauthorised developments and cannot claim genuine mistake. The court must restrain the unauthorised use of the car park under s.160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 570
Parties
Applicant: Concepta Goss; Applicant: Sean Cunniffe; Applicant: Stephen Lane; Applicant: Luke Flanagan; Applicant: Finian Mc Grath; Applicant: Daniel Trayers; Respondent: Joseph O'Toole; Respondent: Helen O'Toole; Respondent: O.T. Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunctive Relief Under S.160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Retention Planning Permission, Environmental Impact Assessment, Public Right of Way, Court Discretion in Planning Enforcement
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Unauthorised Development Retention Planning Permission Environmental Impact Assessment Public Right of Way Court Discretion in Planning Enforcement

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concepta Goss

Applicant

Sean Cunniffe

Applicant

Stephen Lane

Applicant

Luke Flanagan

Applicant

Finian Mc Grath

Applicant

Daniel Trayers

Applicant

Joseph O'Toole

Respondent

Helen O'Toole

Respondent

O.T. Investments Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunctive Relief Under S.160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the split-level car park constitutes unauthorised development
  2. 2 Whether retention planning permission is available for the unauthorised development
  3. 3 Whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was required

Ratio Decidendi

The split-level car park is an unauthorised development. No exceptional circumstances exist to justify refusal of injunctive relief. The respondents have a history of unauthorised developments and cannot claim genuine mistake. The court must restrain the unauthorised use of the car park under s.160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Order restraining all use of the unauthorised split-level car park
  • Stay on the order until the end of the first week in January