The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by Dublin City Council and the State challenging the capacity of the Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association (SAMRA) to bring environmental judicial review proceedings. The decision addressed only that preliminary issue; it did not determine SAMRA’s challenge to planning permission for an expansion of the Ringsend wastewater treatment works.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Clarke on 27 November 2013, the Court upheld the High Court’s rejection of the capacity challenge. The Court had indicated on 10 October 2013 that it would dismiss the appeals, with reasons to follow. The judgment explains those reasons and records that the Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court order.
Dublin City Council had sought permission from An Bord Pleanála for an expansion of the existing treatment works at Pigeon House Road, Ringsend. An Bord Pleanála granted permission. SAMRA later began judicial review proceedings seeking to have that decision quashed and to obtain declarations concerning the State’s obligations under the Habitats Directive. The proceedings also involved a long sea outfall pipe tunnel said to impinge on a special area of conservation that included Sandymount Strand. The Supreme Court did not decide the merits of those claims.
SAMRA obtained leave to bring the judicial review in January 2013. Dublin City Council then sought to dismiss the proceedings on two grounds: that SAMRA lacked capacity because it was not a natural or legal person, and that it had failed to disclose that works had begun. The State supported the motion on capacity alone. The High Court rejected both grounds; only the capacity ruling was appealed.
The Supreme Court accepted the ordinary rule that an unincorporated association generally cannot sue in its own name. But it held that section 50A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, necessarily implied an exception for environmental organisations meeting its criteria. Those criteria included environmental protection aims pursued during the preceding 12 months. The Court noted that the parties accepted SAMRA met the statutory criteria and that no regulations had been made imposing additional requirements relating to capacity.
The Court concluded that qualifying organisations had both standing and capacity to bring the relevant environmental judicial review proceedings in the absence of such regulations. It therefore agreed that the appeals should be dismissed and the High Court order affirmed. The substantive judicial review remained for determination in the High Court.