Kildare County Council v. Goode [1997] IEHC 95; [1999] 2 IR 495 (13th June, 1997)

Kildare County Council v. Goode [1997] IEHC 95; [1999] 2 IR 495 (13th June, 1997)

The Respondents' activities constituted unauthorised development, not exempted by pre-1964 use, as the scale and nature of extraction materially differed from historic use. The proceedings were not statute-barred due to abandonment and recommencement of activity. The absence of formal proof of the Managerial Order was not fatal as the Court exercised its discretion to allow its production.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 95
Parties
Applicant: Kildare County Council; Respondents: Thomas Goode and Others
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 27 of the Local Government (planning and Development) Act, 1976 / High Court Judgment on Preliminary and Substantive Issues
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Planning Permission, Statutory Interpretation, Limitation Periods, Proof of Managerial Order
Planning Law Administrative Law Unauthorised Development Planning Permission Statutory Interpretation Limitation Periods Proof of Managerial Order

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kildare County Council

Applicant

Thomas Goode and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 27 of the Local Government (planning and Development) Act, 1976 / High Court Judgment on Preliminary and Substantive Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents' activities constituted unauthorised 'development' or 'use' under the Planning Acts
  2. 2 Whether the works were exempted as pre-1964 use
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings were statute-barred by limitation periods

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents' activities constituted unauthorised development, not exempted by pre-1964 use, as the scale and nature of extraction materially differed from historic use. The proceedings were not statute-barred due to abandonment and recommencement of activity. The absence of formal proof of the Managerial Order was not fatal as the Court exercised its discretion to allow its production.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Applicant entitled to the relief claimed, including orders restraining unauthorised extraction and related activities, and ancillary reliefs as sought in the Notice of Motion.