Murphy v. Wicklow County Council [1999] IEHC 225 (19th March, 1999)

Murphy v. Wicklow County Council [1999] IEHC 225 (19th March, 1999)

The applicant, though a bona fide public interest litigant, failed on the merits due to delay in challenging the EIS, failure to direct the challenge against the appropriate respondent (the Minister), and the Court's finding that the EIS and statutory procedures were adequate and lawfully certified. The Court exercised discretion to grant locus standi but dismissed all substantive grounds for relief.

Citation
[1999] IEHC 225
Parties
Applicant: Murphy; Respondent: Wicklow County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Environmental Impact Assessment, Compulsory Purchase, Nature Reserve Protection, Judicial Review Procedures
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Locus Standi Environmental Impact Assessment Compulsory Purchase Nature Reserve Protection Judicial Review Procedures

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murphy

Applicant

Wicklow County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to challenge the road development scheme through Glen of the Downs
  2. 2 Whether the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was adequate and lawfully certified
  3. 3 Whether the respondent complied with statutory preconditions for development, including necessary ministerial consents and procedures under the State Property Act 1954

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, though a bona fide public interest litigant, failed on the merits due to delay in challenging the EIS, failure to direct the challenge against the appropriate respondent (the Minister), and the Court's finding that the EIS and statutory procedures were adequate and lawfully certified. The Court exercised discretion to grant locus standi but dismissed all substantive grounds for relief.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review refused on all grounds
  • No relief granted to the applicant