The High Court refused Lorraine Costello’s judicial review challenge to the revocation of her tree-felling licence and a replanting order concerning woodland at Silvergrove, County Cork. The court found no breach of fair procedures by the Forestry Appeals Committee (FAC), and ruled that Ms Costello had not justified the delay in challenging the replanting order. It also set out its view that a person should generally be given a chance to make submissions before such an order is made.
The dispute arose after Ms Costello received a licence in 2017 to thin woodland on land she and her husband, James Costello, farm. Her application, supported by a forester’s plan, proposed 30% selective thinning. Department inspectors later reported that more than 80% of the trees had been felled and that some areas had been cleared and reseeded with grass. Those were departmental assessments, not findings made by the High Court in this judgment.
The Minister revoked the licence on 20 February 2019. On 8 March, the Minister issued a replanting order, saying serious damage had been caused to the forest and requiring replanting by 30 June 2020. Ms Costello appealed the licence revocation to the FAC and also sought to challenge the replanting order through that process. The FAC upheld the licence revocation in April 2020 and had earlier told her it had no jurisdiction to consider the replanting order.
Ms Costello argued that the FAC acted unfairly by obtaining the Department’s file without giving her a copy before the appeal hearing. The High Court rejected that ground. It said she had received the relevant material through freedom of information requests, had the material relied on by the FAC, and had not identified any document that disadvantaged her. She had also declined an offered adjournment after receiving additional material shortly before the hearing.
The court held that the application to challenge the replanting order was brought outside the three-month time limit. It accepted that Ms Costello could reasonably have thought the FAC appeal covered both decisions until the FAC clarified its position in July 2019. But she did not explain why she then waited about a year to seek judicial review, or provide further affidavit evidence addressing that delay. The judge also said she should have disclosed the FAC’s July 2019 letter and the Department documents obtained through freedom of information in her grounding affidavit.
Considering the replanting-order challenge in case the time ruling was wrong, the judge said fair procedures generally required the Minister to notify a person of an intended order and allow submissions before making it. He noted that the order was based on the Minister’s opinion that the trees had been seriously damaged, a statutory ground distinct from breach of a licence condition. However, the court refused all relief sought. The judgment did not quash either decision.