Smyth -v- Dan Morrissey Ireland Ltd [2012] IEHC 14 (25 January 2012)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Smyth

Applicant

Dan Morrissey Ireland Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 160 Application Under Planning and Development Act 2000 / High Court Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent carried out unauthorised development contrary to planning permission
  2. 2 Whether relief under section 160 should be granted to restore road to prior condition
  3. 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