The Supreme Court has dismissed An Bord Pleanála’s appeal against an extension of time granted to Peter and Doreen Thomson to bring a judicial review challenge over permission for an Eircom telecommunications mast near their home in Kells, Co. Kilkenny.
In a judgment delivered on 10 July 2025, Mr Justice Woulfe said the Court of Appeal was justified in allowing the challenge to proceed because of the exceptional public interest in examining the Thomsons’ allegations of systemic problems in the Board’s handling of telecommunications mast appeals. The Supreme Court’s ruling concerns the time extension; it does not determine whether the original planning decision was unlawful or whether the allegations are established.
The Board granted Eircom permission for the mast on 17 June 2021. The statutory eight-week period to challenge the decision expired on 11 August that year. The Thomsons issued judicial review proceedings on 28 November 2022, alleging bias or its appearance in the Board’s decision-making. Their case included claims about the allocation of Eircom mast appeals to former deputy chairperson Paul Hyde and another Board member, and about the outcomes of those appeals. Those remain allegations.
A High Court judge initially granted an extension and leave to seek judicial review, but later set that order aside, finding the Thomsons had not shown good and sufficient reason for the delay. The Court of Appeal majority reversed that decision and granted the extension. One judge dissented.
The Supreme Court said the statutory test requires the court to weigh all relevant circumstances. These include the reasons for delay, the public interest, possible prejudice to the permission holder and, within limits, the merits of the proposed challenge. The Court cautioned that the short planning time limit reflects an important interest in certainty and finality, but Parliament provided for extensions where good and sufficient reason is shown.
The Court considered the allegations unusually serious because they concerned the Board’s handling of cases over several years, rather than only the individual mast decision. It also noted that after mid-August 2022 the Thomsons sought further information about how mast files had been allocated, and that Eircom had not built under the permission or provided evidence detailing specific prejudice from the extension.
The Court described the case as very exceptional and said the same result might not follow in a more routine case with gaps in the explanation for delay. It dismissed the Board’s appeal, leaving the extension in place so the judicial review proceedings may continue. The Court did not rule on the underlying challenge to the permission.