Molumby v. Kearns [1999] IEHC 86 (19th January, 1999)

Molumby v. Kearns [1999] IEHC 86 (19th January, 1999)

The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof that the defendants were in breach of planning conditions or that there was a material change of use requiring planning permission. The evidence did not establish a significant intensification of use beyond historical patterns. The claim for reinstatement of the gate pier was not supported. The evidence of nuisance was not sufficient to warrant the relief sought.

Citation
[1999] IEHC 86
Parties
Plaintiffs: Ronan Molumby and Enda Molumby; Plaintiffs: Colm Carey and Dominique Carey; Plaintiffs: James Kirrane and Mrs. Kirrane; Defendant: Michael Kearns; Defendant: Tom Hefferon; Defendant: NSS Document Management Ltd.; Defendant: Shreddit Ltd.; Defendant: Chervil Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Planning Permission, Material Change of Use, Breach of Covenant, Right of Way, Intensification of Use
Tort Planning Law Nuisance Planning Permission Material Change of Use Breach of Covenant Right of Way Intensification of Use

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronan Molumby and Enda Molumby

Plaintiffs

Colm Carey and Dominique Carey

Plaintiffs

James Kirrane and Mrs. Kirrane

Plaintiffs

Michael Kearns

Defendant

Tom Hefferon

Defendant

NSS Document Management Ltd.

Defendant

Shreddit Ltd.

Defendant

Chervil Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are in breach of planning conditions
  2. 2 Whether there has been a material change of use by intensification
  3. 3 Whether the 'Dell' use requires planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof that the defendants were in breach of planning conditions or that there was a material change of use requiring planning permission. The evidence did not establish a significant intensification of use beyond historical patterns. The claim for reinstatement of the gate pier was not supported. The evidence of nuisance was not sufficient to warrant the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed