Construction Industry Federation v. Dublin City Council [2004] IEHC 37 (4 March 2004)

Construction Industry Federation v. Dublin City Council [2004] IEHC 37 (4 March 2004)

Section 48 does not require a development contribution scheme to specify individual projects, costs, or all underlying data; the scheme must set out the basis for determining contributions and indicate contributions for different classes of infrastructure. The respondent complied with statutory requirements, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Construction Industry Federation; Respondent: Dublin City Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Contributions, Statutory Interpretation, Ultra Vires, Consultation Process, Standing (locus Standi)
Administrative Law Planning Law Development Contributions Statutory Interpretation Ultra Vires Consultation Process Standing (locus Standi)

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction Industry Federation

Applicant

Dublin City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dublin City Council's development contribution scheme complies with s.48 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000
  2. 2 Whether the scheme is ultra vires s.48
  3. 3 Whether the scheme must specify individual projects and costs

Ratio Decidendi

Section 48 does not require a development contribution scheme to specify individual projects, costs, or all underlying data; the scheme must set out the basis for determining contributions and indicate contributions for different classes of infrastructure. The respondent complied with statutory requirements, and the applicant's demand for more detail is not supported by the Act. The consultation process was adequate, and the applicant has standing.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Reliefs sought by applicant refused
  • Scheme as adopted by Dublin City Council upheld