The Supreme Court has said it proposes to allow in principle an appeal by Barranafaddock Sustainability Electricity Ltd in a dispute involving Krikke and others, but it has not lifted a stay on a High Court order.
In a ruling delivered on 18 June 2020, the Court said it would give its reasons in a judgment to follow. It considered that the Court of Appeal had erred in assessing the weight to be given to the various factors in the case.
The Court declined to interfere with the stay imposed by the Court of Appeal. It said that court had heard the substantive appeal in early course and that circumstances had changed significantly since the High Court order was made.
One change concerned An Bord Pleanála, which had undertaken in related judicial review proceedings not to process the respondent’s application for substitute consent until the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in connected proceedings. In those proceedings, An Taisce and Mr Sweetman had challenged aspects of the substitute consent process.
The Supreme Court said Simons J. had been correct in his approach to the stay question based on the circumstances as they appeared at the time. But, given the later change, it considered that the interests of justice were best served by leaving the stay in place and allowing the Court of Appeal to determine what should happen next.
That court was to consider the position in light of its judgment on the substantive appeal before it and, if relevant, the possibility that planning regularisation might be required. The Supreme Court’s ruling therefore indicated its view on the appeal in principle while leaving the stay undisturbed; its reasons were still to be delivered.