The High Court has granted Thomas Grall a certificate and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on four questions of planning law arising from an earlier judicial review decision concerning Meath County Council and An Bord Pleanála.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the ruling on 27 May 2025. The application was made under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which permits an appeal from a planning judicial review decision only where the High Court certifies that it involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that an appeal is desirable in the public interest.
The four proposed questions concern the Board’s obligations when considering information not supplied by a landowner or operator; whether consequences such as enforcement and business closure are proportionate where an operator did not anticipate the Board would rely on other information; the standard a court should apply when reviewing the Board’s decision; and whether potential permanent sterilisation of land affects the required standards of fair procedures and decision-making.
Mr Grall’s counsel argued that there was no authoritative appellate ruling on established pre-1963 use, particularly following the “JJ Flood” line of authority, and that the approach had caused concern in the quarrying sector. The Board’s counsel pointed to a Court of Appeal decision concerning peat extraction that had followed JJ Flood. Mr Justice Barrett accepted that point but said it did not fully answer the applicant’s argument.
The judge said the questions arose from his earlier decision, could affect the outcome if the Court of Appeal took a different approach, and concerned law he considered to involve uncertainty or lack of clarity. He also considered an appeal desirable in the public interest, citing the potential consequences for Mr Grall’s lands and the need for legal clarity in future cases.
The ruling follows Mr Justice Barrett’s earlier judgment in Grall v Meath County Council and Others, [2024] IEHC 552. It grants certification and leave on each of the four proposed questions. The court did not decide those questions on appeal or alter the underlying planning decision in this ruling; the Court of Appeal would determine any appeal brought under the leave granted.