Pierson & Ors -v- Keegan Quarries Ltd [2009] IEHC 550 (08 December 2009)

Pierson & Ors -v- Keegan Quarries Ltd [2009] IEHC 550 (08 December 2009)

Registration of a quarry under s. 261 and imposition of conditions does not confer authorised status on an otherwise unauthorised development; s. 160 enforcement proceedings remain available to parties with locus standi; s. 50 procedural exclusivity does not preclude s. 160 proceedings; factual disputes regarding pre-1964 use are not amenable to judicial review.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 550
Parties
Applicant: Jonathon Pierson; Applicant: John A. Woods; Applicant: Glenn White; Applicant: Desmond Woods; Applicant: Kevin Greene; Applicant: Joan Coyle; Respondent: Keegan Quarries Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Section 160 Application Under Planning and Development Act 2000 / Preliminary Issue Determination
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; applicants entitled to proceed under s. 160
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Quarry Registration, Judicial Review Exclusivity, Enforcement Proceedings
Planning Law Administrative Law Unauthorised Development Quarry Registration Judicial Review Exclusivity Enforcement Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathon Pierson

Applicant

John A. Woods

Applicant

Glenn White

Applicant

Desmond Woods

Applicant

Kevin Greene

Applicant

Joan Coyle

Applicant

Keegan Quarries Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 160 Application Under Planning and Development Act 2000 / Preliminary Issue Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registration of a quarry under s. 261 confers authorised status on an otherwise unauthorised development
  2. 2 Whether s. 50 procedural exclusivity precludes s. 160 enforcement proceedings after registration
  3. 3 Whether factual disputes regarding pre-1964 quarry use can be determined only by judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Registration of a quarry under s. 261 and imposition of conditions does not confer authorised status on an otherwise unauthorised development; s. 160 enforcement proceedings remain available to parties with locus standi; s. 50 procedural exclusivity does not preclude s. 160 proceedings; factual disputes regarding pre-1964 use are not amenable to judicial review.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection dismissed; applicants entitled to proceed under s. 160

Orders

  • Applicants may pursue s. 160 proceedings to challenge alleged unauthorised development
  • No procedural bar from s. 50 or s. 261 to enforcement action