The High Court has quashed Leitrim County Council’s decision to invalidate a phased completion certificate for the Abbey Manor Hotel in Dromahair, finding that the council acted outside the statutory deadline and gave reasons that were unlawful in the circumstances.
In a judgment delivered on 29 April 2024, Mr Justice Humphreys ruled on Dromaprop Limited’s judicial review of the council’s 9 January decision. The certificate covered completed parts of the hotel, including the ground, first and second floors and, in revised drawings, the basement kitchen and laundry. It excluded areas of the two basement floors that were still under construction and were not intended for immediate use.
The council had asked Dromaprop for specific fire alarm, emergency lighting, mechanical and electrical installation certificates. Dromaprop uploaded the requested material on 19 December. On 9 January, the council rejected the certificate, saying upper floors depended on the “collaborative compliance” of excluded floors and listing requirements across multiple parts of the building regulations.
The judge held that when a council requests further information, it must decide whether to accept or reject the certificate within seven days of receiving that information. The council had not acted within that period. The court rejected the council’s argument that it could carry forward unused time from the original 21-day period and add it to the later seven-day period.
The judge also found that the council had not raised its objection to phased certification when it first received the certificate. Instead, it sought specific documents and later relied on a broad objection that the judge said was inconsistent with the regulations’ express allowance for certificates covering areas or phases of a development. In this case, the council’s reasons were also too general and, on the evidence before the court, factually unsustainable.
The court did not decide whether a council may, in principle, refuse a certificate because of a specific compliance issue linking a certified area to an uncertified one. Nor did it decide allegations that the council’s decision was politically motivated; the judge said those matters were not properly pleaded for decision.
The court quashed the 9 January decision. It said the council remained obliged to register the certificate after the deadline had passed, but assumed the council would do so without a court direction. It made no mandatory order at this stage, listing the case again to consider whether any further relief was needed. The question of costs was adjourned.