The High Court has refused Simon Revill’s application to join Fingal County Council to his appeal, submit fresh evidence and place the proceedings under case management.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 30 June 2021 in an appeal arising from proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. The underlying dispute concerns whether development associated with Philip Farrelly is exempt from planning requirements. The judgment did not decide that issue; it addressed Revill’s three requests in an interlocutory application.
The judge said there was no need to add the Council as a notice party. The Council had expressed differing views internally about Farrelly’s development, but the judge said those views would not determine the section 160 dispute. Any relevant Council views could be put before the court in the ordinary course, and the trial could be adjourned for Council affidavit evidence if necessary. He also noted that joining the Council would likely add to the eventual costs burden.
Revill also sought leave to rely on evidence of ongoing works at the premises that had not been before the Circuit Court. The judge refused that request because the supporting affidavit did not substantially identify the proposed evidence or explain why it was needed and why it had not been submitted earlier. Without that information, Farrelly could not make an informed decision about how to respond, as the appeal procedure required.
The judge declined to order case management or set a hearing date. He said advancing the appeal was Revill’s responsibility and that a trial date was for the listing judge.
All three forms of relief were refused. The judge said he proposed to order costs against Revill because he had failed on each part of the application. Either party could object within 14 days of the judgment, in which case the court would schedule a brief costs hearing. The judgment records a proposed costs order, not a final determination after any such hearing.