The High Court has refused John Conway’s application to amend an earlier judgment and denied him leave to appeal a ruling that he lacked standing to challenge An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of approval for Dublin City Council’s proposed College Green civic plaza and related works.
In the earlier judgment, delivered in July 2019, the court found Conway did not have a “sufficient interest” under Irish law or the relevant EU rules to bring the judicial review. It refused leave to bring the proceedings on that basis. The court did not assess the substantive grounds he wanted to raise against the Board’s decision.
Conway asked the court to change the wording of that judgment to say it had not dealt with the leave question because he lacked standing. He argued that the existing wording could suggest the court had considered all grounds of challenge. The Board and State respondents opposed the request, saying that if Conway succeeded on standing in an appeal, the substantive issues could be returned to the High Court for consideration.
Justice David Barniville rejected the amendment application. He said the earlier judgment clearly dealt only with standing and that refusing leave was the required consequence of finding that Conway did not meet the statutory sufficient-interest test.
Conway also sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, proposing four legal questions about standing, including whether Irish rules comply with the EU requirement for “wide access to justice.” The Board and State respondents argued that the law was clear and that the conclusions depended on the particular facts.
The judge said the proposed questions did not establish a point of law of exceptional public importance or show that an appeal would be desirable in the public interest, as required by section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. He described the case as unusual because it sought to challenge a refusal of planning approval. He also said Conway’s non-participation in the planning process was only one of several factors in the earlier standing decision.
Barniville refused leave to appeal, concluding that the statutory requirements were not met. The court’s decision concerned permission to appeal and the requested amendment; it did not determine the underlying planning challenge on its merits.