Clancy & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 528 (09 October 2025)

Clancy & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 528 (09 October 2025)

The proposed amendments to the statement of grounds were refused as they collectively amounted to an entirely new case, were out of time, lacked reasonable explanation, and would cause irremediable prejudice to the public interest. Leave to apply for judicial review was refused as none of the pleaded or proposed amended grounds demonstrated substantial or arguable grounds for challenge, since all relevant planning and environmental issues were addressed at the development consent stage, which was unchallenged, and the statutory scheme was found to be constitutional and compliant with EU law.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 528
Parties
Applicant: John Clancy; Applicant: Sheena Clancy; Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Respondent: Clare County Council; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Amend Grounds and for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application to amend grounds refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused; no order as to costs of adjourned hearing.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Order, Judicial Review Procedure, Habitats Directive, Development Consent, Proportionality, Adequacy of Compensation, Transposition of EU Directives, Public Interest, Costs Protection
Planning Law Environmental Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law European Union Law Compulsory Purchase Order Judicial Review Procedure Habitats Directive +6 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 5 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Clancy

Applicant

Sheena Clancy

Applicant

An Bord Pleanála

Respondent

Clare County Council

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Amend Grounds and for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to the statement of grounds should be permitted in judicial review proceedings concerning a CPO
  2. 2 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted on the pleaded and proposed amended grounds
  3. 3 Whether the statutory scheme for compulsory purchase and related procedures is inconsistent with the Constitution or EU law

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments to the statement of grounds were refused as they collectively amounted to an entirely new case, were out of time, lacked reasonable explanation, and would cause irremediable prejudice to the public interest. Leave to apply for judicial review was refused as none of the pleaded or proposed amended grounds demonstrated substantial or arguable grounds for challenge, since all relevant planning and environmental issues were addressed at the development consent stage, which was unchallenged, and the statutory scheme was found to be constitutional and compliant with EU law.

Court Disposition

Application to amend grounds refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused; no order as to costs of adjourned hearing.

Orders

  • Refusal of amendments to statement of grounds
  • Refusal of leave to apply for judicial review