The High Court has found that the factual and legal issues tied to a proposed international protection accommodation centre at the former Crown Paints site in Coolock are moot, after the State said there was no prospect of the project proceeding in the foreseeable future and Townbe said it no longer intended to develop it for that purpose.
Mr Justice David Holland delivered the ruling on 18 July 2025 in proceedings brought by Alan Croghan, Amanda Farrelly and Melissa Kelly. He declined to use his discretion to decide the moot issues, and said he would hear the parties on what may remain of the case, the form of any order, costs and directions for further or amended pleadings.
The plaintiffs had sought, among other relief, to prevent the accommodation of migrants at the site and challenge planning, environmental and other legal arrangements connected with the project. Croghan and Farrelly also made allegations about Garda policing of protests. The judgment records that Croghan said he no longer wished to pursue his complaints about his treatment by Gardaí in these proceedings, having chosen other forums. It does not determine the merits of those allegations.
The project’s prospects changed after the Government announced on 15 May 2025 that it did not intend to establish an accommodation centre at the site. The judge noted that the announcement alone was not evidence. He then directed the State and Townbe to confirm their positions by affidavit. The State said it had no plans for the centre and was not considering it for the foreseeable future; Townbe said it had been told it would not receive a contract for the project.
Justice Holland concluded that issues dependent on the proposed centre lacked a live factual dispute. He also held that questions about a Dublin City Council order made on 7 January 2025 granting a planning exemption for the site’s change of use to temporary accommodation were moot, because that use was no longer in prospect.
The judge rejected arguments that the court should decide the moot issues because similar cases might arise, the legal questions were important, or the plaintiffs sought declarations. He said the case did not meet the exception for disputes capable of repetition yet evading review. He distinguished authorities involving a lead case or alleged past breaches of fundamental personal rights.
The ruling did not decide the defendants’ motions to strike out or dismiss the proceedings. Nor did it settle whether any claims remain outside the issues linked to the proposed project. The court directed that the parties be heard further on those matters.