The High Court has set aside leave for the owners of Hamwood Stud and the stud company to challenge two county councils’ declarations that works to an electricity line were exempted development. It dismissed their request to extend the time limit for bringing the judicial review.
The case concerned the existing Maynooth-Woodland 220 kV line, which crosses the applicants’ lands in Dunboyne, County Meath. EirGrid sought declarations from Kildare and Meath County Councils in March 2020. Kildare declared the works exempt on 20 March 2020 and Meath did so on 23 July 2020. Neither council published the details and documents relating to the requests, as required by law.
The applicants sought to quash both declarations and raised, among other matters, arguments about property rights and public participation. Those substantive challenges were not decided in this judgment. The motions before the court concerned whether leave to pursue the judicial review should be set aside or, alternatively, whether time should be extended.
The court found the applicants knew, or ought to have known, of the declarations on 10 February 2022, when the ESB first expressly informed them they had been made. Earlier discussions and site activity did not make it more likely than not that the declarations already existed. Because the decisions had not been published, the court said the applicants could not reasonably be expected to infer their existence from those earlier dealings.
The parties agreed that, on the respondents’ interpretation of the applicable rules, the applicants then had eight weeks to bring proceedings. That period expired on 6 April 2022. The applicants accepted that their application was made on 7 April, one day late.
The judge found no good and sufficient reason under domestic law to extend the deadline. The applicants had tried to file on the final day, arriving at the Central Office 12 minutes before the stamping office closed, but their statement of grounds was unstamped. The court said the applicants had left no margin for error and had not explained why the document was presented without the required stamp.
The court also rejected the argument that European Union law required more time in this case. It said applicants must have the full eight-week period from when they know or ought to know of a decision, but found these applicants had enough information and opportunity to bring proceedings within that period. The judge said no reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union was necessary.
The order dismissed the motion to extend time and granted the notice party’s application to set aside leave to seek judicial review. The judgment did not determine whether the councils’ declarations were legally valid or whether the proposed works could proceed.