Judgment: 2006-12-06 · Court archive

High Court refuses Glenkerrin Homes’ bid for immediate compliance letters

The interlocutory application sought letters confirming payment of planning contributions. The court found issues for trial but said the mandatory order sought would effectively decide the case.

High Court, Dublin · [2006] IEHC 413

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Glenkerrin Homes (Plaintiff)
What

The interlocutory application sought letters confirming payment of planning contributions. The court found issues for trial but said the mandatory order sought would effectively decide the case.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ballinteer Avenue
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 11 December 2006

    The court adjourned the hearing and said it hoped to give directions for an early trial of the central question: whether the developer was entitled to unqualified compliance letters. Costs were reserved at least until the next mention, set for 2pm on 11 December 2006.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Clarke said the application sought, in substance, a mandatory order. If granted, the letters could not be withdrawn and the order would give the company the practical substance of the relief it sought in the proceedings. Such an order required a very clear case, and the judge was not satisfied that this was one.

The High Court refused Glenkerrin Homes’ application for an interlocutory injunction requiring Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to issue letters of compliance for financial contributions attached to planning permissions for a residential development at Ballinteer Avenue.

Mr Justice Clarke said the application sought, in substance, a mandatory order. If granted, the letters could not be withdrawn and the order would give the company the practical substance of the relief it sought in the proceedings. Such an order required a very clear case, and the judge was not satisfied that this was one.

The company argued that the Council’s established practice of issuing compliance letters gave it a legal entitlement to them, at least for permissions granted before a policy change was notified. The Council disputed that any legal obligation existed and argued that it could change its policy prospectively. The judge said both sides had arguable cases; the application could not resolve those legal questions, which remained for trial.

The immediate dispute concerned letters confirming payment of financial contributions while negotiations over social and affordable housing obligations remained unresolved. The Council had offered a letter confirming the contributions were paid, provided it also stated that the housing agreement contemplated by the planning permission had not been completed. The company sought an unqualified letter.

The judge made no final finding on the parties’ rights or on how the housing obligations should be determined. He commented that ministerial guidelines appeared to contemplate a binding process to determine those obligations and said there might be strong grounds for a compliance letter if such a process were in place. He also said the question of whether the matter belonged before An Bord Pleanála or a property arbitrator was not determined.

The court adjourned the hearing and said it hoped to give directions for an early trial of the central question: whether the developer was entitled to unqualified compliance letters. Costs were reserved at least until the next mention, set for 2pm on 11 December 2006.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review