Judgment: 2017-07-07 · Court archive

High Court refuses challenge to Kildare waste permit refusal after later permit made case moot

The court said the dispute ended when David Boylan Limited obtained a permit in August 2016 after complying with conditions. It refused the company’s remaining relief and awarded costs to Kildare County Council.

High Court · [2017] IEHC 481

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • David Boylan Limited (Applicant)
  • Kildare County Council (Respondent)
  • Margaret Heneghan (Judge)
  • David Boylan
What

The court said the dispute ended when David Boylan Limited obtained a permit in August 2016 after complying with conditions. It refused the company’s remaining relief and awarded costs to Kildare County Council.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Kerdiffstown
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

While the case was pending, the company made a second permit application. After it complied with the conditions required by the council, the council granted a permit in August 2016. The court found that the parties had a real dispute when the proceedings began, but that the later permit removed the dispute between them.

The High Court has refused David Boylan Limited’s challenge to Kildare County Council’s 2014 refusal of a waste facility permit for lands at Kerdiffstown, Co Kildare, ruling that the later grant of a permit had made the proceedings moot. The court awarded the costs to the council.

The company began the case in December 2014, asking the court to annul or amend the council’s refusal and grant the permit. It argued that the site was a disused quarry with planning permission for restoration, but that development had not started and outstanding planning conditions could not be fully addressed before a waste permit was issued.

The council said the 2007 regulations prevented it from granting a permit unless it was satisfied the facility complied with planning requirements. It maintained that the company had not demonstrated compliance with specified conditions, including pre-commencement requirements.

While the case was pending, the company made a second permit application. After it complied with the conditions required by the council, the council granted a permit in August 2016. The court found that the parties had a real dispute when the proceedings began, but that the later permit removed the dispute between them.

Justice Margaret Heneghan said the company’s argument about how the regulations used the word “facility” was theoretical in the circumstances. The court did not decide that statutory interpretation question as a live dispute: it concluded that an eventual ruling would have no practical significance after the permit was granted.

The judge found that the proceedings became moot because the company complied with the conditions required by the council and consequently received the later permit. She refused the remaining application for relief under the notice of motion and ordered the company to pay the council’s costs. The court did not grant the original requested relief to annul or amend the 2014 refusal.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review