Conway v An Bord Pleanala & ors [2020] IEHC 4 (14 January 2020)

Conway v An Bord Pleanala & ors [2020] IEHC 4 (14 January 2020)

Applicant lacked standing under national and EU law; refusal to grant leave was correct and supported by statutory provisions; no uncertainty in law or point of exceptional public importance established; amendment of judgment unnecessary and leave to appeal not desirable in public interest.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 4
Parties
Applicant: John Conway; Respondent: An Bord Pleanala; Respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party: Dublin City Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application to Amend Principal Judgment
Outcome
Both applications refused.
Legal Topics
Standing, Judicial Review, Leave to Appeal, Planning and Development Act, Directive 2011/92, Access to Justice
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law EU Law Standing Judicial Review Leave to Appeal Planning and Development Act +2 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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Conway

Applicant

An Bord Pleanala

Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondent

Dublin City Council

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application to Amend Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant has sufficient interest (standing) under national and EU law to bring proceedings
  2. 2 Whether refusal to grant leave should be amended to state court would not deal with issue of leave due to lack of standing
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted on points of law of exceptional public importance

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant lacked standing under national and EU law; refusal to grant leave was correct and supported by statutory provisions; no uncertainty in law or point of exceptional public importance established; amendment of judgment unnecessary and leave to appeal not desirable in public interest.

Court Disposition

Both applications refused.

Orders

  • Application to amend principal judgment refused.
  • Application for leave to appeal refused.