The County Council of Meath -v- Murray & anor [2017] IESC 25 (19 May 2017)

The County Council of Meath -v- Murray & anor [2017] IESC 25 (19 May 2017)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct to grant the demolition and restoration order under section 160, as the development was a flagrant and unjustified breach of planning law, the process was properly followed, and the relief was proportionate in the circumstances. The appellants' constitutional and ECHR arguments were not raised at trial and did not warrant overturning the order. The hardship to the appellants, while regrettable, did not outweigh the necessity of upholding planning law and the integrity of the statutory regime.

Citation
[2017] IESC 25
Parties
Applicant/respondent: The County Council of the County of Meath; Respondent/appellant: Michael Murray; Respondent/appellant: Rose Murray
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Statutory Injunction Under Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Planning Enforcement, Statutory Injunctions, Proportionality, Constitutional Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Judicial Discretion
Planning Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Unauthorised Development Planning Enforcement Statutory Injunctions Proportionality +3 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The County Council of the County of Meath

Applicant/respondent

Michael Murray

Respondent/appellant

Rose Murray

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Injunction Under Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting a demolition and restoration order under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether the process under section 160 was appropriate given the lack of urgency and the family home context
  3. 3 Whether the orders infringed constitutional rights (Articles 40.3, 40.5, 41, 42, 43) and/or Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct to grant the demolition and restoration order under section 160, as the development was a flagrant and unjustified breach of planning law, the process was properly followed, and the relief was proportionate in the circumstances. The appellants' constitutional and ECHR arguments were not raised at trial and did not warrant overturning the order. The hardship to the appellants, while regrettable, did not outweigh the necessity of upholding planning law and the integrity of the statutory regime.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Demolition and removal of the unauthorised dwelling house
  • Restoration of the lands to pre-development (agricultural) condition