The High Court refused to certify a point of law for appeal to the Supreme Court in a dispute over planning permission for the continued use of a quarry.
Shillelagh Quarries Limited had sought a certificate concerning the court’s June 2012 refusal of leave to bring judicial review proceedings against An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission. The board had refused permission in December 2010, citing the need for an environmental impact assessment and a significant element of retention permission.
The company argued that the board had relied on a decision concerning a section 5 referral before that decision had been formally determined. It also submitted that the legal status and scope of such decisions raised questions of exceptional public importance, including implications for fair procedures and other cases.
The board opposed certification. It argued that the points did not arise from the High Court’s decision or from the grounds pleaded in the judicial review case. It also said the company had asked the board to consider its submissions on the planning appeal when dealing with the section 5 referral.
Mr Justice Hedigan said the issue about the timing of the section 5 decision had been argued at the hearing but was not included in the grounds on which the company sought leave. The company had not applied to amend those grounds. The judge said the point therefore was not specifically addressed in the earlier judgment, although he considered it with some hesitation.
He rejected the argument that the board had to wait for the section 5 decision to be formally determined before considering the planning application. The judge said the board could take account of a decision it had just made, and that the applicant had known the board would consider the matters together. He found no basis for a claim that the company had been taken by surprise or denied fair procedures.
The court said the statutory requirements for a certificate were cumulative: the proposed appeal had to concern a point of exceptional public importance, and an appeal had to be desirable in the public interest. It refused to certify any point of law under section 50A of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The ruling concerned certification for an appeal; it did not grant permission for a Supreme Court appeal.