The High Court dismissed Joseph Connolly’s judicial review proceedings challenging planning permission for a proposed 713-home development near Donacarney, Co Meath. The court held that a covenant in a land-sale contract barred him from pursuing the challenge.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 8 July 2008, concerned a motion by Michael Ryan, trading as the Rybo Partnership, to dismiss the proceedings as an abuse of process. The Board and Meath County Council did not take part in the motion and agreed to abide by the court’s decision.
Connolly had sold about 20 hectares to the partnership for €14.25 million in October 2003, retaining about 7.6 hectares including Donacarney House. In March 2008, An Bord Pleanála granted permission for the proposed development on the sold land. Connolly sought judicial review, alleging that the Board had failed to account for a February 2008 variation to the Meath County Development Plan, which he said restricted development numbers and required phasing.
Connolly argued that the buyer’s framework plan had left out his retained land, making it difficult for him to develop it. He said that if the permission were overturned, he might be able to apply for permission for his own land. Those were his claims; the court was not deciding the planning merits of the Board’s decision.
The contract included a promise by Connolly not to object, directly or indirectly, to planning applications by the buyer. A separate clause required the buyer not to object to applications by Connolly for his retained land. The court rejected Connolly’s arguments that the buyer had used an improper procedure and that the covenant did not cover judicial review.
Justice Irvine said the contract’s wording, read in context, covered court proceedings that could interfere with the buyer’s planning permission. The court also rejected Connolly’s arguments that it should imply an exception to the covenant or treat the parties’ shared hope of future development as limiting its effect. It said the contract contained no term requiring either party to avoid actions that might harm the other’s development prospects.
The court concluded that the challenge was barred by the contract and dismissed the judicial review proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction. It did not determine whether the Board had properly considered the development-plan variation or whether the planning permission was otherwise valid.