Dublin Corporation v. Lowe [2000] IEHC 161 (4th February, 2000)

The removal of the original hoarding by David Allen Holdings Limited constituted abandonment of any established user rights, and the new hoarding erected by Signways Limited is unauthorised; Section 27 proceedings are appropriate and delay does not amount to acquiescence.

Citation: [2000] IEHC 161
Parties: Applicant: Dublin Corporation; Respondent: Lowe; Respondent: Signways Limited
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Procedural Posture: Application Under Section 27 of the Local Government (planning and Development) Act 1976 as Substituted by Section (4)(g) of the Local Government (planning and Development) Act 1992 / Final Judgment
Outcome: Application granted in part
Legal Topics: Unauthorised Structure, Established User, Delay and Acquiescence, Mandatory Orders, Planning Permission

Planning Law Local Government Law Unauthorised Structure Established User Delay and Acquiescence Mandatory Orders Planning Permission

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Dublin Corporation

Applicant

Lowe

Respondent

Signways Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 27 of the Local Government (planning and Development) Act 1976 as Substituted by Section (4)(g) of the Local Government (planning and Development) Act 1992 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the advertising hoarding constitutes an unauthorised structure
2 Whether delay by the applicant amounts to acquiescence
3 Whether an established user defence applies

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

Order directing Respondents to discontinue unauthorised use of exterior flank wall at No 3 Inns Quay, Dublin 7 for advertisement purposes
No order made for removal of advertisement hoarding