The Court of Appeal has allowed Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council’s appeal against an order striking out its statement of opposition in a challenge to the county development plan. The court held that the council’s chief executive did not need a resolution from elected members to defend the proceedings.
The appeal concerned the interpretation of section 153(2) of the Local Government Act 2001. That provision says a chief executive must act with the elected council’s express authorisation in legal proceedings concerning a reserved function, and that authorisation is deemed to have been given unless the contrary is shown.
Oceanscape Unlimited Company challenged a specific local objective in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022–2028. The objective provides for primary and post-primary education facilities on land owned by Oceanscape. The company argued that it effectively sterilised the land and prevented non-educational development while the objective remained in place. The council disputed the grounds of the challenge.
The High Court had ruled that express authorisation was required, struck out the council’s statement of opposition and allowed it to file new opposition papers if the elected council gave the required authorisation by a specified date. The council appealed that decision.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2025, Ms Justice Butler concluded that section 153(2) was not itself a reserved function under the statutory scheme. Because the Local Government Act treats functions that are not reserved as executive functions, she held that the chief executive could defend the proceedings without a council resolution. Elected members could still direct the chief executive’s conduct of the litigation by passing a resolution under section 140, the judgment said.
The Court of Appeal set aside the order striking out the statement of opposition. It did not decide the substantive challenge to the development plan, which remains to be heard. The court proposed that the council recover its costs for the appeal and the High Court application, with that order stayed until the substantive proceedings conclude. The parties were given an opportunity to file submissions on different costs orders.