The High Court has refused Telstar Investments Ltd permission to continue a challenge to Dublin City Council’s compulsory acquisition of two properties on Parnell Street after finding that the proceedings were brought under the wrong judicial review procedure and too late.
The properties, identified in the judgment as Nos. 77 and 78 Parnell Street, had been owned by Telstar. Dublin City Council began compulsory acquisition proceedings under the Derelict Sites Act 1990 in February 2024.
Telstar was properly served with notice but did not lodge a formal objection by the 22 March deadline. That mattered because an objection would have required the Council to seek approval from An Bord Pleanála. Without one, the Council could proceed itself to make a vesting order transferring ownership.
The vesting order was executed on 11 April 2024 and took effect on 10 May. After Telstar’s solicitor complained, the Council’s law agent wrote on 9 May stating that no statutory objection had been received and that the properties would vest in the Council.
Telstar later characterised that letter as a decision refusing to repeal the vesting order and sought to have it quashed. It initially obtained leave in September 2024 under the ordinary judicial review procedure, which generally carries a three-month limit.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons held that this was the wrong route. Because the challenge concerned a function under the Derelict Sites Act relating to compulsory acquisition, it fell within the special judicial review regime under the Planning and Development Act 2000. That procedure imposed an eight-week limit and a stricter test for extending time.
The court set aside the earlier grant of leave and considered Telstar’s later attempt to obtain leave under the correct procedure. It rejected arguments that ongoing contact with Council officials created a reasonable belief that the acquisition might be abandoned.
The judge found the Council’s position had been clear from 9 May 2024 and that the statutory requirements for extending time were not met. The fresh leave application was therefore refused. The precise final order and costs were left for later submissions.