The High Court has refused McCaughey Homes Limited a certificate allowing it to appeal to the Court of Appeal over a ruling on development contributions for 30 unsold houses.
Mr Justice Robert Eagar delivered the decision on 20 April 2018. The application sought leave under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Acts to appeal the court’s October 2017 judicial review determination.
In that earlier judgment, the court held that certain contribution monies had vested in Irish Water on 8 April 2015. It found that McCaughey Homes had liability to both Louth County Council and Irish Water under Condition 13 of its planning permission. Because of the council’s action, the court directed that the condition be amended only in respect of the 30 unsold houses.
McCaughey Homes proposed six questions for appeal. They concerned how successive development contribution schemes applied, whether a planning authority could require contributions beyond those specified in its current scheme, the treatment of sums vested in Irish Water, and the withholding of compliance certificates. The company argued that the 2016 scheme changed the basis for some contributions while leaving parts of the 2004 scheme applicable.
The council opposed certification. It submitted that the application sought to reargue issues already decided, that no legal uncertainty had been shown in the day-to-day operation of the schemes, and that some proposed questions did not arise from the judgment or had not been argued during the original proceedings.
The judge was not satisfied that any proposed question met the applicable legal criteria. He found that the questions were not of exceptional public importance and that the law was not shown to be uncertain. He also said some points had been raised for the first time in the certification application and did not arise from the original judgment.
The court concluded that the applicant had not established either exceptional public importance or that an appeal was desirable in the public interest. It therefore refused the certificate for leave to appeal. The decision concerned permission to appeal; it did not reopen or replace the October 2017 judicial review determination.