The High Court has refused Irish Skydiving Club Limited an extension of time to challenge a planning decision about sponsored parachute jumping at Kilkenny Airfield. The ruling decides only the time issue in the judicial review; it does not determine the club’s substantive grounds for challenging the decision.
An Bord Pleanála decided on 14 January 2015, following a referral by Kilkenny County Council, that the club’s use of the airfield for sponsored parachute jumping was development and was not exempted development. The club sought to have that decision quashed, arguing, among other things, that it was not notified of the referral and that the Board had disregarded its inspector’s recommendations.
The Board objected that the application was late. The High Court considered that preliminary issue in a separate, or “modular”, hearing. The statutory period was eight weeks from the date of the decision. The proceedings were brought 17 days beyond that period, using the date leave was sought; the Board accepted that calculation for the argument.
The club argued that it learned of the decision on 29 January and needed time to understand its basis and obtain advice. It also alleged that the Board’s replies to its correspondence were delayed to ensure the deadline passed. The judge rejected the claim of deliberate delay, finding no foundation for it. She said the legislation tied the time limit to the date the decision was made, not when an affected party learned of it or decided, after taking advice, to challenge it.
The judgment records that the club learned of the decision on 29 January, contacted the Board, and was told on 5 February that the Board’s jurisdiction was spent. On 10 March, the day the statutory period expired, the company’s board decided to instruct solicitors to seek judicial review. Leave was granted on 27 March.
The court held that an extension required both a good and sufficient reason and circumstances causing the delay that were outside the applicant’s control. It found the club had enough information to seek advice and act, and had not convincingly explained why it continued corresponding with the Board after 5 February. The judge therefore found the second requirement was not met and did not decide whether the first was satisfied. She refused to extend time. The underlying judicial review grounds were not decided in this judgment.