The High Court has refused John McHugh leave to seek judicial review of a Laois County Council letter concerning a quarry, after finding that his application came more than 14 years too late and that there was no good reason to extend the time limit.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons gave his written judgment on 1 February 2021, after refusing leave at a hearing on 28 January. The application had been lodged on 9 November 2020. The court said the proceedings were governed by the version of the judicial review rules that applied before a 2006 amendment, giving a six-month limit rather than the later eight-week limit for this type of planning decision. The application should therefore have been brought by 3 July 2006 at the latest.
The council’s letter, dated 3 January 2006, said it did not intend to impose conditions on the quarry’s current extracted area because it did not appear to have been in continuous operation since before 1964. It invited submissions by a date printed as 27 January 2005. The judge treated that as an obvious error and read it as 27 January 2006. Mr McHugh made no submission in response.
Mr McHugh’s central proposed argument was that the council’s stated reason was outside its powers. The judge rejected that as misconceived, explaining that continuous use was a recognised planning concept and that the council had invited him to contest its provisional view. The court also said the section 261 registration process did not itself determine a quarry’s planning status.
In refusing an extension of time, the judge cited the length of the delay, the public interest in finality in planning decisions, and the absence of an adequate explanation. The judgment referred to Mr McHugh’s awareness of the letter when it was issued, apparent legal advice at the time, later dealings with the Legal Aid Board, and an alleged adverse effect on a contract in 2008. It said difficulties obtaining legal representation did not justify missing the judicial review deadline. The judge also considered intervening changes to quarry legislation and the lack of merit in a challenge brought without first using the council’s invitation to make submissions.
Separate challenges to the validity of the time limit and to the Legal Aid Board’s actions were ruled inadmissible: the necessary parties had not been joined, and no specific Board decision had been identified. The court listed the case for 22 February 2021 to address costs and, if necessary, whether leave to appeal was required. The judgment did not determine those outstanding matters.