The Court of Appeal has refused Stateline Transport Limited’s appeal against the refusal of a 12-month stay on an order requiring it to stop using a Dublin 9 site for commercial storage of shipping containers without planning permission.
The court directed that the six-week period for removing the containers would run from 23 February 2024, the judgment date. The stay was to expire on 5 April 2024, irrespective of when the order was formally perfected. The appeal concerned the timing of compliance with the High Court order; the Court of Appeal did not decide the outstanding planning appeal concerning the site.
Tesco Ireland Limited, which owns the land beside its distribution centre in Ballymun, had brought proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Stateline had occupied the approximately two-acre site since January 2020 under a 10-year lease. The judgment records that the company had no planning permission for the use, which involved between 1,500 and 2,000 containers, often stacked six or seven high.
Fingal County Council issued a warning letter in December 2020 and an enforcement notice in August 2021 requiring removal of the containers within four months. Stateline applied for retention permission in November 2022; Fingal refused it in January 2023. Stateline appealed that refusal to An Bord Pleanála, whose decision was still pending when the Court of Appeal heard the case.
Tesco and Stateline settled the underlying proceedings, with Stateline consenting to an order declaring the development unauthorised and requiring it to cease. Tesco agreed not to oppose an application for a stay of up to 5 October 2024, while leaving the decision to the court. The High Court refused the requested 12-month stay in November 2023, allowing six weeks to wind down operations and remove the containers.
Stateline argued that continued operation served the public interest because the facility supported container storage and transport logistics, and that relocation would cause wider disruption. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court could weigh that claim alongside the other relevant circumstances; there was no absolute rule requiring an additional factor before a stay could be granted. But it upheld the trial judge’s assessment that the public-interest evidence did not justify continuing the unauthorised use. It said the expert evidence was not automatically binding because it was unopposed, and that its limits concerned the weight it could carry, not the economist’s personal credibility.
The court also found it appropriate to consider Fingal’s planning concerns without deciding the planning merits or predicting An Bord Pleanála’s decision. It refused the appeal and directed Fingal to notify the court within 14 days if it intended to seek costs. Any such application would not affect the six-week removal period.