The High Court has refused an attempt by six applicants challenging a proposed wastewater treatment plant in Kilkee to compel An Coimisiún Pleanála to disclose what its commissioners personally considered when granting permission.
Martin Busher, Joseph Mc Closkey, Brian Melican, Ivan Graydon, Tom Boland and Terry Reynolds are seeking to quash the Commission's 11 June 2025 permission for Uisce Éireann to construct a wastewater treatment plant, pumping station and associated works at Dunlicky Road, Victoria Park and other locations in Kilkee and Co Clare.
Their substantive judicial review raises issues concerning odour and noise, site lighting, landscaping and screening. One further ground is no longer pursued.
Before that case is heard, the applicants sought directions requiring the Commission to give a full account of whether, and how, specified matters had been considered. They argued that without such evidence they could be disadvantaged by the legal presumption that the Commission's decision is valid.
Ms Justice Emily Farrell rejected that application. She accepted the established principle that public authorities defending judicial review proceedings must put their cards face upwards on the table. However, she held that this does not normally require decision-makers to swear affidavits describing their internal thought processes.
The Commission had identified in its opposition papers the decision, inspector's report, direction, planning file and policy material on which it would rely. The judge found that the applicants therefore knew the case they had to meet.
She held that the planning decision must ordinarily speak for itself. It remains open to the applicants at the substantive hearing to argue from the written decision and planning file that important matters were not considered or that adequate reasons were not given.
Requiring the Commission to prove affirmatively that its own decision was valid would reverse the normal burden in judicial review, the court held.
The application was refused. The court proposed no costs order, subject to any party applying within three weeks for a different costs ruling.