The High Court has refused John and Sheena Clancy permission to amend their judicial review case and dismissed their application for leave to challenge a compulsory purchase order for the N67/N85 Inner Relief Road in Ennistymon, Co Clare.
The order, made by Clare County Council in 2020 and confirmed by An Bord Pleanála in 2022, covers the Clancys’ family home and the premises from which they run a flower shop. The road project had already received planning approval through the council’s Part 8 process in 2018. That approval was not challenged.
The Clancys sought to add claims concerning environmental assessment, the extinguishment of rights of way and the impact of acquiring their property. Justice Emily Farrell ruled that the proposed amendments went beyond permissible changes and would introduce what amounted to an entirely new case. She said the information relied on had been available earlier with reasonable diligence, and that the later freedom of information request did not provide a valid explanation for the delay.
The judge also said the compulsory purchase order did not itself extinguish public rights of way. Any such order would have to be made by the council after acquiring the lands, and could be challenged if and when made. She said the Board’s role at the CPO stage was not to revisit or modify the development consent already granted under the Part 8 process.
Considering the existing and proposed grounds for leave, Justice Farrell found they did not meet the required threshold. She said the Board’s decision addressed the need for the acquisition, the public interest and the effects on affected owners. Compensation was a separate matter outside the Board’s jurisdiction at the CPO stage, she said, and the Clancys’ rights to argue for adequate compensation were unaffected by the decision.
The judge said it was unnecessary to decide the Clancys’ application for costs protection because the proceedings were being dismissed. She made no order for the costs of an adjourned hearing in November 2023, taking account of an interim costs protection order and the circumstances of that adjournment.
The court’s order refused the amendments, dismissed the application for leave to seek judicial review and made no order as to the costs of the adjourned hearing. The case was listed for consequential orders on 3 November 2025.