The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Louth Environmental Group (L.E.G.) against the refusal to let it join a judicial review over zoning provisions in the Dundalk and Environs Development Plan 2009–2015. It also refused an application for legal aid related to that appeal, finding that no useful purpose would be served because the appeal was moot.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Clarke on 24 February 2017, explains the court’s reasons for a ruling made at the hearing. The court had already ruled that the appeal was moot and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify hearing it. It did not decide whether L.E.G. might otherwise have been entitled to legal aid, or whether it should originally have been allowed to join the case.
McCaughey Developments Limited began judicial review proceedings in April 2010, challenging aspects of the development plan’s zoning of lands it apparently owned. It alleged that parts of the plan had been adopted in breach of fair procedures; Dundalk Town Council disputed that claim.
L.E.G. applied to join the proceedings in October 2010. The High Court refused the application on 6 December 2010, and L.E.G. appealed to the Supreme Court later that month. It did not seek a stay of the High Court case or an expedited hearing of its appeal. The underlying case proceeded, and the High Court later found a denial of fair procedures in the circumstances, quashed the council’s zoning decision and remitted the issue to the council. Neither side appealed that decision.
The council then conducted a further statutory process, including public consultation from 20 July to 17 August 2011. L.E.G. took part. A final plan followed, and no challenge was brought to its validity. By the time the Supreme Court considered L.E.G.’s appeal, the development plan was nearing the end of its term and being replaced.
Justice Clarke gave two reasons for treating the appeal as moot. The underlying proceedings had concluded more than five years earlier, so allowing L.E.G. to join them could no longer have a practical effect; reopening them would also unsettle a completed process and a zoning decision that no one had challenged. Separately, the plan L.E.G. sought to uphold had reached its natural end and a new plan would govern zoning.
The court also declined to consider the legal aid question despite its potential importance. Justice Clarke said such difficult issues should be decided in a concrete case where they could affect the outcome. The court refused the legal aid application and dismissed the substantive appeal as moot.