The High Court has dismissed James McNulty’s judicial review challenge to Clare County Council’s decision to extinguish part of an alleged public right of way at Carrowmore, Doonbeg, and provide a different route to the beach.
Mr Justice Charleton ruled that the application was brought too late to pursue the claim that the public hearing was tainted by objective bias. The council’s solicitor, John Shaw, had advised the hearing’s independent chair, Marcus O’Connor, on procedure. The judge said Mr McNulty had raised his concern during the hearing, where his counsel withdrew in protest, but no good reason had been given for waiting to seek judicial review until more than a year later. The application was therefore dismissed.
The challenge concerned a council proposal under section 73 of the Roads Act 1993, published in July 2008. It would extinguish 105 metres of the alleged public right of way and establish a car park for 75 vehicles, with a new pedestrian route to the beach. The proposed replacement arrangement also provided access for emergency vehicles and for people with restricted mobility. The council adopted the arrangement by resolution on 21 September 2009.
The judge stressed that he was not deciding whether a public right of way had ever existed across the full track. That issue was not before him in this judicial review. Separate relator proceedings involving the Attorney General remained unresolved, and the court was not determining their effect.
Although delay disposed of the application, the judge also considered the other arguments. He found that a small dog-leg added to the replacement route was not a material change requiring further procedures. The council could consider the alternative access arrangement alongside the proposed extinguishment, and the court found no defect that undermined the validity of the council’s decision. It also rejected arguments about the proposal’s implementation date and the council’s consideration of representations.
The court’s ruling concerned the legality of the council’s process. It did not determine the underlying public-right-of-way dispute or decide the merits of access arrangements for the beach.