The High Court has refused an application by Naeem Maniar to revisit findings in a planning case brought by Waterford City and County Council, and to remove him personally as a respondent. The court said the earlier judgment stands and that final orders could now be drawn up in accordance with an agreed draft.
The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 26 March 2021, concerned an application to reopen a judgment delivered on 16 December 2020. In that earlier judgment, the council succeeded in proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 concerning alleged unauthorised retail development at three premises in its functional area. The earlier orders directed the retail use to cease from midnight on 16 December and unauthorised signage to be removed within 72 hours. Costs were still outstanding.
Maniar asked the court to revisit two matters: its description of his affidavit evidence as “evasive”, and his inclusion as a respondent. He had been a director and group chairman of companies that operated the premises and had sworn seven affidavits for himself and the corporate respondents. He pursued the application as a litigant in person after parting ways with his former legal representatives. The other parties did not support his application.
The judge said a first-instance court may revisit a written judgment before its order is perfected, but only where exceptional circumstances or strong reasons justify doing so. The jurisdiction must be used sparingly, given the importance of finality; a dissatisfied party will generally have a right of appeal.
On the evidence finding, the court said Maniar had not meaningfully challenged the basis for the earlier description. The original judgment had found that the respondents did not explain how retail use at two sites could reasonably have been considered lawful without planning permission. It also noted that the planning advice submitted post-dated the start of the development. The judge said the characterisation of the evidence was central to the earlier decision not to exercise discretion in the respondents’ favour, so it could not be removed without reconsidering that part of the judgment as a whole. Maniar had said he accepted the findings and orders concerning the premises, while objecting to the description of his evidence and asserting harm to his reputation and personal rights.
On joinder, the judge noted that the issue had been raised at the original hearing and that counsel had said the respondents were not seeking Maniar’s removal, on his instructions. The court held he could not reverse that position after judgment.
The High Court found no strong reasons to reopen its earlier judgment. It said Maniar retained a full right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The case was listed for 12 April 2021 to address outstanding issues and any application for additional costs.