The Supreme Court has ruled that Paul Clinton may pursue grounds beyond the point of law certified by the High Court in his appeal concerning a compulsory purchase order (CPO) made by Dublin City Council. It directed that the full appeal be listed as soon as possible; it did not decide the substantive grounds or the validity of the CPO at this stage.
The preliminary issue was whether section 50(4)(f) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 confined Mr Clinton’s appeal to the certified question. That question concerned whether An Bord Pleanála could confirm a CPO for “development purposes” without requiring the acquiring authority to specify the proposed development or scrutinising whether all affected land was needed for it.
Mr Clinton argued that the certificate opened the way to appeal the High Court’s decision, rather than restricting the appeal to that question. An Bord Pleanála argued that the appeal was limited to the certified point. Dublin City Council also submitted that the appeal was not so limited. The Attorney General made submissions to assist the Court on the jurisdictional issue.
Delivering the judgment on 1 November 2006, Denham J. relied on the wording’s legislative history and prior decisions interpreting similar appeal provisions. The Court considered the constitutional right of appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court and concluded that any statutory restriction on the scope of an appeal would need to be clear and unambiguous. It found that the provision was ambiguous in light of the existing case law and held that Mr Clinton was not confined to the certified ground.
The appeal arose from a High Court judgment delivered on 15 March 2005 and an order perfected on 19 August 2005. The High Court had refused the relief sought by Mr Clinton and certified one point of law for appeal. His notice of appeal raised additional grounds, including challenges relating to the CPO’s purpose, the assessment of public interest against affected property rights, and the constitutional validity of provisions in the 2000 Act. Those are grounds raised in the appeal, not findings made by the Supreme Court in this preliminary judgment.
The judgment resolves only the scope-of-appeal issue. The substantive appeal remained to be heard.