The High Court has refused Christian Morris leave to appeal its substantive judgment in a planning judicial review, finding that his proposed grounds did not meet the statutory test for an appeal.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the ruling electronically on 13 September 2024. The application was made under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. That provision permits an appeal only where the High Court certifies that its decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that an appeal is desirable in the public interest.
The court’s substantive judgment had been delivered on 31 May 2024. In seeking leave, Morris relied in part on grounds advanced by Graymount House Action Group and others in related proceedings. The judge said he was giving those submissions the same response as in the Graymount case’s leave judgment, without repeating them.
Morris also challenged aspects specific to his case. He disagreed with the earlier finding that one ground had not been pleaded with sufficient specificity. The court said disagreement with that conclusion did not satisfy the statutory test, and noted that it had gone on to consider the ground’s merits.
A further ground concerned the judgment’s reference to submissions made to An Bord Pleanála by Mr and Mrs Dillon, who had objected to the original planning permission. Morris appeared to argue that his evidence or submissions had been “disqualified”. The judge rejected that characterisation, saying no evidence had been ruled out and that the relevant challenge had been considered on its merits.
Morris also disputed the court’s conclusion that his concerns about the decision-maker’s lack of curiosity and diligence did not establish legal error. The judge said disagreement with that finding did not create a point of exceptional public importance. The applicant had put forward no legal basis for his further assertion that want of curiosity or diligence could invalidate the decision.
Finally, Morris objected to the earlier description of some challenges as too general to amount to legal error, saying the characterisation was harsh given that he was a lay litigant. The court noted that it had nevertheless considered and rejected the merits of that challenge. It found no point of law of exceptional public importance arising from the judgment.
The court refused leave to appeal. It directed the parties to provide brief written submissions on the terms of the final order and costs within two weeks. The case was listed for mention in a hybrid hearing on 22 October 2024 at 10.30am for final orders. The ruling therefore refused permission to appeal; it did not itself settle the terms of the final order or costs.