The High Court dismissed a motion by trustees of Kevin’s GAA seeking to compel An Bord Pleanála to answer interrogatories in their judicial review of a planning decision. The court found that the applicants had not shown the requested information was relevant to an issue in the proceedings, including issues that could be pleaded if further information emerged.
The judicial review concerns the board’s decision to permit apartments and a new GAA clubhouse on part of a developer’s playing fields, along with a crèche and an ESB substation. Dublin City Council had refused the application in June 2019, and the developer appealed. The board directed that permission be granted in November 2019 and issued its formal decision on 26 November. After an error was noticed in a reference to a Special Area of Conservation, the board issued an amended decision on 4 December under section 146A of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The trustees’ primary relief in the judicial review is an order quashing the board’s decision. The motion before Humphreys J. was a separate procedural application: the parties had agreed to treat it as a motion to compel replies to interrogatories. The trustees sought information about whether a board official’s affidavit statements came from his personal knowledge or from reading the board’s file.
The judge said the applicants’ challenges to the correction of the SAC reference and to what matters were considered could be assessed from the documents. He also found that statements in the board’s opposition and the official’s affidavit did not identify a specific disputed fact for which the official’s source of knowledge would matter. The statement that the error was clerical was, in context, a recital of the board’s direction; the court said the reference to an irrelevant SAC was itself plainly an error.
The judgment addressed the board’s duty of candour in judicial review, including its obligation to give a comprehensive account of the decision-making process and facts relevant to issues the court must decide. That duty may extend to matters that could be pleaded if an applicant knew about them, but not to matters with no potential relevance. The judge concluded the trustees had not established that the information they sought fell within a relevant category.
The court dismissed the motion to compel replies. It did not determine the underlying challenge to planning permission. The parties were directed to contact the List Registrar to have the case listed on the next convenient Monday for consequential matters or directions.