Doyle & Anor v Dublin City Council & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 441 (01 August 2025)

Doyle & Anor v Dublin City Council & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 441 (01 August 2025)

Dublin City Council did not discharge the heavy burden of proving that the grant of leave was plainly wrong or that the applicants' case, including the application for extension of time, was so lacking in merit as to warrant striking out. The proceedings should proceed to trial, and delay arguments can be fully...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 441
Parties
Applicant: Declan Doyle; Applicant: Amatrek Limited; Respondent: Dublin City Council; Respondent: Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Grant of Leave
Outcome
Application to set aside grant of leave refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Delay, Building Control Act 1990, Building Regulations, Ultra Vires, Constitutional Rights
Administrative Law Building Control Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Delay Building Control Act 1990 Building Regulations +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Declan Doyle

Applicant

Amatrek Limited

Applicant

Dublin City Council

Respondent

Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Grant of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be set aside due to delay
  2. 2 Whether applicants are entitled to an extension of time to challenge administrative decisions
  3. 3 Whether the underlying proceedings are clearly unmeritorious

Ratio Decidendi

Dublin City Council did not discharge the heavy burden of proving that the grant of leave was plainly wrong or that the applicants' case, including the application for extension of time, was so lacking in merit as to warrant striking out. The proceedings should proceed to trial, and delay arguments can be fully agitated at that stage.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside grant of leave refused

Orders

  • Matter adjourned to Non-Jury Judicial Review directions list with recommendation for prompt hearing
  • Applicants entitled to costs of the application, effect of costs order stayed pending determination of overall proceedings