Sweeman -v- Shell E & P Irelan Ltd [2016] IESC 2 (03 February 2016)

Sweeman -v- Shell E & P Irelan Ltd [2016] IESC 2 (03 February 2016)

The appeal is moot because Shell and Mayo County Council completed all formalities required by Condition 37, Mayo County Council is satisfied with compliance, and there is no longer a live controversy. Even if there was non-compliance, the delay and change of circumstances would preclude granting injunctive relief.

Citation
[2016] IESC 2
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Peter Sweetman; Respondent: Shell E&P Ireland Limited; Respondent: Lennon Quarries Limited; Respondent: T. J. Lennon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission Compliance, Injunctive Relief, Discretion in Granting Injunctions, Mootness, Interpretation of Planning Conditions
Planning Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Compliance Injunctive Relief Discretion in Granting Injunctions Mootness Interpretation of Planning Conditions

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

Parties

Peter Sweetman

Applicant/appellant

Shell E&P Ireland Limited

Respondent

Lennon Quarries Limited

Respondent

T. J. Lennon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Shell complied with Condition 37 of the planning permission prior to development
  2. 2 Whether the appeal is moot due to subsequent compliance and completion of development
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on supervening events not considered in the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is moot because Shell and Mayo County Council completed all formalities required by Condition 37, Mayo County Council is satisfied with compliance, and there is no longer a live controversy. Even if there was non-compliance, the delay and change of circumstances would preclude granting injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed