The High Court refused to extend the time for John Cassidy to bring a judicial review challenge to Waterford City and County Council’s draft tree preservation order for land known as Bookies Wood in Tramore.
Mr Justice Eagar’s judgment, delivered on 24 November 2017, concerned the deadline for challenging the council’s decision of 8 November 2016. The court found the statutory eight-week period expired on 12 January 2017. Cassidy obtained leave to bring the judicial review on 6 February, 25 days after that deadline.
The dispute arose after Cassidy, the owner of the 2.45-hectare site, obtained a felling licence from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in January 2016. He began felling sycamore trees in October. The council made a draft Tree Preservation Order on 8 November, and the tree surgeon was directed to stop work two days later.
Cassidy argued that his travel abroad, the timing of the council’s replies to his correspondence, and his efforts to resolve the matter directly meant the delay resulted from circumstances outside his control. In a letter of 1 December, he objected to the draft order, sought information and said he intended to seek judicial review if the council did not withdraw it. The council replied on 20 December that the TPO process would continue and that he could inspect the file.
The council argued that Cassidy knew of the proposed order by 10 November and had enough time to act within the statutory period. It also pointed to his further absence from Ireland after the December reply. The parties disputed what had been said in an earlier conversation between Cassidy and a council representative; the judge said it was unnecessary to determine that dispute.
The court held that an extension required both good and sufficient reason and circumstances causing the missed deadline to be outside the applicant’s control. Because the test was cumulative, the judge did not decide whether there was good and sufficient reason. He found Cassidy had the relevant information by 20 December and sufficient knowledge to instruct solicitors.
The court therefore refused to enlarge the time for the judicial review. The judgment did not determine whether the draft TPO was lawful or resolve Cassidy’s substantive challenge to it.