The High Court has allowed Catherine Taaffe to add three grounds to her judicial review challenge to a Louth County Council enforcement notice and related costs invoice, while refusing the other proposed additions.
In a judgment delivered on 25 June 2013, Mr Justice Birmingham considered Ms Taaffe’s application to amend the grounds on which she had already received leave to seek judicial review. The case was at the amendment stage: the judge did not decide whether the enforcement notice or invoice should be quashed, or determine the underlying allegations.
Ms Taaffe had obtained leave in March 2012 to challenge a notice dated 9 January 2012 and an invoice for enforcement costs. Her original grounds included claims that she did not own or control the premises, had stopped using the structure before the notice was issued, and that an established use existed. The notice concerned the alleged use of a portacabin-type structure at Rathnestin, Tallanstown, as a solicitors’ office.
The judge refused proposed grounds alleging inadequate investigation and engagement by the council, including complaints about access to the enforcement file. He said several points lacked substance or were misconceived, and that Ms Taaffe had known the relevant circumstances before seeking leave. He also said she had not clearly told the council that she had stopped her solicitors’ practice at Rathnestin.
He allowed a ground concerning the statutory 12-week objective for deciding whether to issue an enforcement notice after a warning letter. The judge said the period was an objective, not an absolute deadline, but a failure to meet it might still support an argument. Allowing the ground would not substantially widen the case or prejudice the council.
The court rejected proposed grounds based simply on the complaint being anonymous, noting there was no statutory bar on a planning authority acting on anonymous written complaints. But it permitted a revised ground about how a copy of the complaint was supplied. The judge said blank spaces had been redacted in a way capable of giving the impression that identifying details had been removed, when the complaint had been anonymous. He said the applicant might argue that this misled or disadvantaged her and made the procedure unfair.
The judge also allowed a ground alleging that the council acted in bad faith because Ms Taaffe had represented a client in contested criminal proceedings brought by the council. He noted a lack of detail about what new information supported the allegation and expressed scepticism that it could be substantiated, but allowed it to be pleaded.
The permitted amendments were Ground 13, Ground 19 and a revised ground about the complaint. The remaining proposed additions were refused.