The Court of Appeal has held that the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 provides legal aid and advice to individuals, not bodies corporate. It dismissed Friends of the Irish Environment CLG’s challenge to the Legal Aid Board’s refusal to consider its application for aid for proposed judicial review proceedings concerning the National Planning Framework and National Development Plan.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Murray on 3 February 2023, said the Act’s eligibility rules are framed around individual circumstances, including disposable income, hardship and living expenses. It also found that the legislation did not address matters that would need consideration for corporate applicants, such as the resources of shareholders, creditors or associated companies. The court concluded that extending eligibility to companies would significantly alter the scheme’s purpose and scope. The Interpretation Act 2005’s general rule that “person” includes a body corporate did not change that conclusion.
The environmental group had argued that the Act should be read to allow corporate applications, relying on that interpretation rule, Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Aarhus Convention. The Legal Aid Board said the Act did not permit aid for a company. It refused the application in November 2018 and upheld that position on internal review in January and February 2019.
On the Aarhus argument, the Court of Appeal found that the group had not established that the proposed proceedings were prohibitively expensive in the circumstances. The judgment noted that the group had obtained legal representation and faced no liability for the State’s costs if unsuccessful. It also said the Convention did not require states to establish a legal aid scheme.
The court considered the Charter argument arguable: it accepted that the complete exclusion of legal persons from legal aid in some EU law cases might breach Article 47. But it did not decide that question in the group’s favour. The judgment noted that the group had not sought an order requiring the State to provide aid, that other aid mechanisms might exist, and that the interpretation it sought would be contrary to the Act’s proper construction.
The court did not make a final decision on whether to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union. It gave the group a further opportunity to make submissions on whether a reference was warranted, on the assumption that the court’s conclusions on the Act and the limits of conforming interpretation were correct. The judgment was agreed by President Barniville and Mr Justice Noonan.