The High Court has dismissed Clare Manor Hotel Limited’s damages proceedings against Dublin Corporation over the refusal of planning permission for housing on its lands, finding that the company’s delay in pursuing the case was inordinate and inexcusable and had prejudiced the defendant.
The company alleged maladministration, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, abuse of discretionary powers and breach of statutory duties in decisions concerning its lands at the Clare Manor Hotel, Balgriffin. It claimed that the stated reasons for refusing permission were not the true reasons, and alleged that officials were not bribed by the company or were corrupted by a third party. Those allegations were not findings by the court.
In 1986, the company applied to build 156 houses on the site. Dublin Corporation refused permission in May 1987, citing sewerage capacity, the absence of a sewer at the outfall, access before construction of the North Fringe Route, and deficiencies in the proposed layout. An Bord Pleanála refused the appeal in November that year, referring to sewerage and access issues. The company did not challenge those decisions by judicial review. It later sold the land in 1990; the purchaser or successors subsequently obtained permission for housing on an enlarged site.
The proceedings were issued in October 1999. The company delivered its statement of claim in January 2001. After the defendant sought particulars in April 2004, the company did not reply until 2011. The company said it had hoped a planning inquiry would investigate its complaint and provide assistance. But the tribunal did not investigate the matter, and its public hearings had concluded by September 2008. The court found that the company had not told the defendant it was suspending the case while awaiting the tribunal.
Justice Dunne held that the delay, particularly the years between the request for particulars and the replies, was inordinate and inexcusable. She also accepted that the passage of time had caused prejudice: former officials who might have assisted the defence had died or retired, another potential witness was very elderly, and memories of events in 1987 would have faded. The broad allegations and the company’s failure to identify clearly the officials said to have been involved added to the difficulty of defending the claim.
The court rejected the company’s argument that the defendant had acquiesced in the delay, including by consenting to a short extension for replies to particulars in 2011. It concluded that the balance of justice favoured dismissal. The judge therefore dismissed the proceedings on that basis and said it was unnecessary to decide whether they should also be struck out under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.