The High Court dismissed Ryanair Ltd’s challenge to planning permission for a second terminal at Dublin Airport, ruling that a settlement agreement with Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) prevented the airline from maintaining the judicial review proceedings.
Mr Justice Clarke delivered the judgment on 11 January 2008. The DAA had applied to have the proceedings dismissed or struck out. An Bord Pleanála told the court it would abide by any order. The other notice parties did not participate in the DAA’s application.
The dispute arose from a 2005 government decision that the DAA should commission and build a second terminal, with its operator to be selected later through open competition. Ryanair challenged that decision. Those earlier proceedings were settled in March 2006 and struck out. Under the settlement, Ryanair agreed not to bring further challenges against or connected with the government decision concerning Terminal 2, or in respect of implementation of the DAA’s medium-term masterplan prepared by Pascall and Watson.
The DAA argued that the agreement barred any challenge relating to a second terminal. Ryanair argued that the restriction applied only to a development implementing the Pascall and Watson plan. It also said the DAA should be prevented from relying on the settlement because it had allowed Ryanair to participate in the planning process.
The judge held that the settlement’s wording barred challenges connected with the government decision, including a challenge to planning permission for a second terminal. He added that, even if the restriction were limited to implementation of the masterplan, the permitted challenge would be excluded unless the proposal was so different from the plan as to be an entirely different development. The plan gave broad ranges and called for further work; although the proposed terminal was larger and more expensive, the judge was not satisfied that it was entirely different.
On Ryanair’s estoppel argument, the judge found that the DAA had raised the settlement during the planning process and had not acted in a way that prevented it from later relying on the agreement. He said observations to a planning authority would likely not amount to a challenge, while an appeal to the Board likely would. He did not need to decide whether the DAA could have prevented Ryanair from taking part in the planning process.
The court dismissed the proceedings because the settlement prevented Ryanair from maintaining the challenge. It did not determine the underlying planning merits of the Terminal 2 permission.