The High Court has refused Shillelagh Quarries Limited leave to appeal a 2019 decision that dismissed its challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s refusal to let it apply for substitute consent for its quarry.
Mr Justice David Barniville ruled on 24 January 2020 that neither of the company’s proposed questions raised a point of law of exceptional public importance. He also found that an appeal would not be desirable in the public interest, a separate requirement under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The first proposed question concerned the meaning of the statutory requirement that the quarry must have “commenced operation” before 1 October 1964. The company argued that the phrase required only proof that quarrying had begun before that date. The judge said the same phrase had already been interpreted by the High Court in an earlier case, and that the law was neither uncertain nor evolving. He also said the company had not adequately addressed the European Union law context considered in his earlier judgment.
The second proposed question concerned the court’s power to quash an administrative decision because of an error on its face. The company relied on errors in the Board’s order, including a reference to a statutory provision that was not the basis for its refusal. The judge said the errors were minor and had not misled or prejudiced the company. He also found that the broader argument about the court’s jurisdiction had not been raised during the original judicial review hearing, so it did not arise from the decision the company sought to appeal. He considered a Supreme Court case about search warrants to involve a different situation.
In considering the public interest, the judge referred to the quarry’s history of planning applications, Board decisions and court proceedings. He noted that the quarry had no existing planning permission and that operations had ceased on 23 May 2017. He concluded that the company had already had adequate opportunities to seek permissions and consents, and that the proposed legal questions were unlikely to assist many other cases.
The ruling decided only whether the company could appeal the High Court’s 2019 judicial review decision. The judge refused leave to appeal; the application did not reopen the Board’s 2017 decision or grant substitute consent.