The High Court has refused Michael Grimes’s application for judicial review of Cork County Council’s removal of two buses from a public road at Ballinascarthy, Co Cork. The court found the council was entitled to remove them under the Road Traffic (Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1983. It also found no evidence that the council had decided to destroy or dispose of the buses.
Grimes had sought an order quashing what he described as the council’s decision to take control of and destroy two buses: a Leyland National and an Aer Lingus vehicle. He also sought damages and other relief. The council said the buses had been left unlawfully parked or abandoned on the road, and that it arranged for their removal and storage in March 2005 after earlier notices and complaints.
Before hearing the judicial review, the court considered the council’s application to set aside the leave granted to Grimes to bring the case. The council relied on alleged inaccuracies and nondisclosure, lack of merit and a claim that Grimes had no sufficient interest in the matter. The judge accepted that there had been some nondisclosure, including about the buses’ presence on the road and a notice sent to Grimes. But she said it would be too harsh to set aside leave, and the council had not shown that the application was so lacking in merit that it should be dismissed at that stage. The leave remained in place, and the judge went on to hear the full application.
The judge found the buses were on a public road, had been there for more than a year and were not lawfully parked. Photographs showed a “no parking” sign. She was satisfied that regulation 5 gave the council authority to remove abandoned vehicles. She noted that regulation 6, concerning unlawfully parked vehicles, applied in circumstances involving Garda authority or a road authority acting after consultation with the Garda Commissioner; there was no evidence the council could rely on that provision.
The court distinguished removal from disposal. One bus had been significantly damaged after removal, but the buses had also suffered vandalism while on the roadside. The judge said the evidence did not establish who caused the later damage or what liability might arise. She found no council decision to destroy or dispose of the buses: a contractor’s quotation for removal and disposal was not evidence that the council had made such a decision. The judge said disputes about damage and any resulting liability were not suitable for determination in these judicial review proceedings.
The court also refused to adjourn the damages claim for a plenary hearing. The claim had not been properly formulated or particularised, and the judge had heard no argument on whether damages could be pursued independently after the judicial review failed. Grimes was therefore not entitled to any of the relief sought. The judgment was delivered on 25 November 2005.