The High Court has admitted Paul Walsh and Christine Kirwan’s action against St. Clare’s GP3 Limited and Balark Trading GP Limited to the Commercial Planning and Strategic Infrastructure Development List. The case seeks specific performance of a settlement agreement concerning privacy screening beside the plaintiffs’ property.
The ruling by Humphreys J. concerns where the proceedings will be managed, not whether the defendants breached the settlement or what planting is required. The court ordered that the matter be listed for directions on a date to be notified by the List Registrar, unless the parties agree directions in the meantime.
The judgment describes a history involving eight planning applications and four sets of proceedings. The plaintiffs live beside the development site. They say trees at the back of the site were removed in 2017, harming their privacy, and that planting provided for in a 2019 settlement did not take place as agreed. The settlement said their property should have adequate privacy screening and provided for landscaping along its boundary.
The plaintiffs also say that a planting diagram on file with the city council was replaced in 2021 with one showing smaller trees, and that trees planted in January 2022 were inadequate. The judgment recounts that the council stated in December 2021 that trees had been unlawfully removed but that nothing could then be done. These are matters described in the judgment as the plaintiffs’ account or as prior events; this ruling did not determine the underlying planting dispute.
The defendants opposed admission, arguing that the present claim was about breach of contract rather than planning or the environment. The judge held that the proceedings fell within the practice direction because the settlement’s purpose was tree planting and screening, directly related to the natural and built environment. He said admission was based on the case’s subject area, rather than requiring the court to identify specific planning issues that would need to be decided.
The judge also considered the connection with earlier commercial proceedings, the sequence of planning applications and cases, and the desirability of expedition. The defendants had raised delay, noting that the trees were planted in January 2022, the plaintiffs complained the following month, and the present action was issued in September 2022, with the admission motion filed in December. The judge said the delay was not extreme and did not outweigh the other circumstances supporting admission.
The court encouraged the possibility of resolving the matter without a judicial determination and said it was open to considering an adjournment or case-management approach that could assist. No such resolution was ordered.