Judgment: 2013-01-22 · Court archive

High Court rules planning appeals were withdrawn before An Bord Pleanála’s decision took effect

Following an earlier High Court ruling, Mr Justice Hedigan found the Board’s determination took effect no earlier than 21 March 2011, after the three Michels withdrew their appeals.

The High Court · [2013] IEHC 34

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Ecological Data Centres Limited (Applicant)
  • An Bord Pleanála (Respondent)
  • Claus Michel
  • Iris Michel
  • Marc Michel
What

Following an earlier High Court ruling, Mr Justice Hedigan found the Board’s determination took effect no earlier than 21 March 2011, after the three Michels withdrew their appeals.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge said the three appeals were withdrawn on 16 March 2011, while they had not yet been determined. If the approach in *Urrinbridge Limited v An Bord Pleanála & Ors* [2011] IEHC 400 applied, the determination occurred no earlier than 21 March. By then, the appeals had been withdrawn and, the judge concluded, the Board no longer had jurisdiction to decide them.

The High Court ruled that An Bord Pleanála no longer had jurisdiction to determine three planning appeals after the appellants withdrew them, adopting an earlier ruling on when a Board decision takes effect.

In a judgment delivered on 22 January 2013, Mr Justice Hedigan said the decisive issue was whether the Board’s determination took effect when notice of its decision was first sent. The applicant, Ecological Data Centres Limited, relied on the timing of the withdrawals by Claus Michel, Iris Michel and Marc Michel.

The judge said the three appeals were withdrawn on 16 March 2011, while they had not yet been determined. If the approach in *Urrinbridge Limited v An Bord Pleanála & Ors* [2011] IEHC 400 applied, the determination occurred no earlier than 21 March. By then, the appeals had been withdrawn and, the judge concluded, the Board no longer had jurisdiction to decide them.

Mr Justice Hedigan said he had carefully read the *Urrinbridge* judgment and considered its analysis thorough and correct. He adopted its reasoning. Because he agreed with that decision, he said it was unnecessary to address whether he was bound to follow it under the principles of precedent between courts of equivalent jurisdiction.

The court found Ecological Data Centres Limited entitled to orders in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of its notice of motion dated 12 May 2012. The judgment does not set out the text of those paragraphs, so the precise terms of the orders cannot be stated from this source.

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