Reid v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 27 (24 January 2024)

Reid v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 27 (24 January 2024)

The applicant failed to properly plead or evidence any defect in prior assessments, did not establish a breach of EU law, and did not call on the Board to discharge any remedial obligation. The challenge to the 2019 permission was previously dismissed, precluding collateral attack. Notification and publication requirements were met or, where not met, only entitle declaratory relief, not quashing of the decision. The impugned national regulations are not invalid for failure to transpose EU law as pleaded.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 27
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Reid; First Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Second Respondent: Ireland; Third Respondent: The Attorney General; Notice Party: Intel Ireland Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Appropriate Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment, Seveso Directive, Habitats Directive, Public Notification, Pleading Requirements, Remedial Obligations, Declaratory Relief
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law European Union Law Appropriate Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment Seveso Directive Habitats Directive +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Reid

Applicant

An Bord Pleanála

First Respondent

Ireland

Second Respondent

The Attorney General

Third Respondent

Intel Ireland Limited

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision to grant development consent for modifications at Intel Campus breached EU law obligations regarding Appropriate Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to comply with statutory requirements for notification and publication of its decision
  3. 3 Whether national regulations validly transpose EU Directives

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to properly plead or evidence any defect in prior assessments, did not establish a breach of EU law, and did not call on the Board to discharge any remedial obligation. The challenge to the 2019 permission was previously dismissed, precluding collateral attack. Notification and publication requirements were met or, where not met, only entitle declaratory relief, not quashing of the decision. The impugned national regulations are not invalid for failure to transpose EU law as pleaded.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for certiorari refused
  • Declaratory relief granted in respect of procedural defects only