The High Court granted the respondents a two-month stay on an order to stop quarrying at land in Aughfarrell, Brittas, County Dublin. It refused South Dublin County Council’s application for its costs of the proceedings.
The supplemental judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Baker on 19 January 2016, dealt with the length of the stay and the council’s costs. It did not grant the respondents the 12-month stay they sought. The court said the additional two months would give them an opportunity to seek to regularise the development, which the judgment described as unlawful.
The underlying proceedings were brought by Michael McCoy and South Dublin County Council against Shillelagh Quarries Limited and five named individual respondents, with Joan Murphy as notice party. The applicants sought relief under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to stop stone extraction and related activity at the quarry lands. The judgment records that the parties did not dispute the applicants’ entitlement to seek those orders in light of the court’s findings in its substantive judgment.
Justice Baker explained that her October 2015 judgment had been delivered in an unapproved form and that its orders had not yet been perfected. She accepted that it contained an error about the effect of a 2011 amendment concerning works begun before or after November 2004. The approved and signed version corrected that error and consequential errors, including the treatment of restoration works. The supplemental judgment does not set out the full terms of the final order concerning restoration.
In refusing the council’s costs, the judge said it was not a necessary party and could have assisted the case by other means, including providing documents or evidence. She also relied on her earlier finding of culpable delay by the council, which she considered significant. McCoy had been awarded his costs on 11 January 2016; the respondents had not opposed that application.
On the stay, the respondents argued that closing the quarry could harm the operating company, affect employment and disrupt its market. They also said they had sought leave to apply for substituted consent under the 2015 environmental regulations. The judge considered those matters alongside the community’s economic interests and the need to protect the environment. She noted the respondents had already benefited from delay in the proceedings and from the time taken to correct the judgment. The stay was therefore limited to two months.