Smyth -v- Dan Morrissey Ireland Ltd [2012] IEHC 14 (25 January 2012)
Relief under section 160 is refused because applicant failed to prove material unauthorised development, did not challenge respondent's evidence, did not complain to planning authority, delayed proceedings, and relief sought is disproportionate given circumstances and public interest.
- Citation
- [2012] IEHC 14
- Parties
- Applicant: Keith Smyth; Respondent: Dan Morrissey Ireland Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 25 January 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Section 160 Application Under Planning and Development Act 2000 / High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Relief refused; application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Unauthorised Development, Planning Permission Compliance, Discretionary Relief, Enforcement Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Keith Smyth
Applicant
Dan Morrissey Ireland Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Section 160 Application Under Planning and Development Act 2000 / High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent carried out unauthorised development contrary to planning permission
- 2 Whether relief under section 160 should be granted to restore road to prior condition
- 3 Whether deviations from planning permission are material or de minimis
Ratio Decidendi
Relief under section 160 is refused because applicant failed to prove material unauthorised development, did not challenge respondent's evidence, did not complain to planning authority, delayed proceedings, and relief sought is disproportionate given circumstances and public interest.
Court Disposition
Relief refused; application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment