The Court of Appeal has allowed most of a Donegal landowner’s claim over the designation of his lands as a protected area to proceed, while dismissing his claim that the lands were compulsorily acquired.
The court on 11 March 2025 set aside the High Court decision striking out the proceedings, except for claims alleging compulsory acquisition, purchase or taking of the lands. It directed the landowner to remove those claims from his pleadings within 21 days of the court order. He may not add new material as part of that amendment.
The dispute concerns lands at Cashelgolan, Portnoo, County Donegal, included in a candidate Special Area of Conservation known as West of Ardara/Maas Road. The landowner seeks damages and other relief relating to the designation and the refusal of a 2006 application to plant forestry. The Court of Appeal noted that his pleadings are lengthy and difficult to interpret.
The State respondents had argued that the case should be struck out on grounds including lack of standing, limitation, collateral attack and double recovery. At the appeal hearing, they no longer pursued the standing and collateral-attack arguments. The court found that the landowner had a sufficient interest to bring the proceedings, including because designation affects how he may use his land and he had made a compensation claim.
The court said it was too complex to decide at the strike-out stage which parts of the claim might be time-barred. The State accepted that time began to run in 2003 or 2004, when the landowner was asked to make submissions about the proposed designation, and that proceedings issued in 2008 were within time. The court left limitation arguments about particular claims to be addressed at trial.
On double recovery, the court said the related judicial-review pleadings had not been put before it, making a fair assessment difficult. It concluded the State had not met the high threshold for striking out this case. The court observed that the present proceedings appeared to overlap with a compensation claim pursued through arbitration and said it would be sensible for this case to be determined before further steps in the 2022 judicial-review proceedings. It did not decide issues concerning separate proceedings challenging a 2024 regulation.
The court held that the lands remained in the landowner’s ownership and that there was no basis for treating their designation as a compulsory acquisition. His existing claim that designation affected his constitutional property rights may continue, to the extent it is already pleaded. The trial judge must consider any impact and its legal consequences. Questions about the State’s obligations to examine the land and identify protected species were also left for the substantive hearing.
The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court costs order against the landowner. It proposed that he receive 80% of his expenses for defending the strike-out motion and bringing the appeal, while allowing 14 days for either side to make submissions on any different costs order.