The High Court has refused leave to appeal in two judicial review cases concerning the Moyfin quarry, after finding that none of 12 proposed questions met the statutory threshold of a point of law of exceptional public importance.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 13 March 2023, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland said the applicants could not appeal the court’s earlier decisions without leave under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The applications concerned decisions delivered on 12 December 2022.
In the Fursey Maguire proceedings, the court had refused to quash An Bord Pleanála’s 2013 decision upholding a council determination that the quarry required an environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment. The court also upheld the enforcement notices issued by Meath County Council on 24 June 2013. Justice Hyland had held that the quarry’s treatment as pre-1964 for the purpose of conditions imposed under section 261 did not prevent a later review under section 261A from treating it as post-1964.
In the Phoenix Rock Enterprises proceedings, the court had refused to quash the Board’s 2020 decision refusing leave to apply for substituted consent. Justice Hyland had upheld the Board’s consideration of non-compliance with section 261 conditions when assessing statutory criteria for exceptional circumstances. She said that, in this case, the applicant had relied on its belief that the site was recognised under section 261 and that it operated in accordance with the conditions.
The applicants proposed four questions arising from Fursey Maguire and eight from Phoenix Rock. Justice Hyland said established High Court case law addressed the interaction between sections 261 and 261A, and that several questions sought general guidance or raised matters not decided in the earlier proceedings. She also described the consideration of compliance with conditions in Phoenix Rock as specific to the facts and the applicant’s own reliance on those conditions.
The applicants’ submissions referred to other quarry cases, possible effects on the quarry industry and the supply of materials for housebuilding. The judge said those matters had not been introduced in evidence, and there had been no application to provide affidavit evidence for the leave hearing. She concluded that the applicants had not established a concrete public-interest basis for an appeal.
The court refused leave on all 12 questions. Because it found the exceptional-public-importance threshold was not met, it did not decide whether an appeal would be desirable in the public interest.