The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by Save the South Leinster Way and Tara Heavey over how the eight-week deadline for certain planning judicial reviews is calculated when the High Court offices are closed on the final day.
In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2024, Mr Justice Brian Murray said the time limit in section 50(6) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 must be read alongside the court rules governing the procedure for bringing these applications. Where the final day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or another day when the offices are closed, the application may be brought on the next day the offices are open.
The case concerned whether the statutory eight-week period could be treated as expiring on a day when the court offices were closed, despite the requirement to seek leave for judicial review under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The judgment noted that section 50(2) expressly directs applicants to use that procedure and concluded that, absent a contrary statutory provision, the legislature intended the deadline to follow the rules on closed-office days.
Mr Justice Murray reviewed earlier Irish and English decisions on statutory deadlines, including cases that had extended filing time when a court office was closed. He considered three possible approaches: a fixed rule extending deadlines, a contextual presumption that could be displaced by legislative purpose, or a strict reading of the statutory words. He concluded that the close connection between section 50 and Order 84 supported applying the court rules to this deadline.
The judgment also addressed the limits of the ruling. It did not establish that every statutory limitation period is automatically extended whenever a court office is closed. The court’s reasoning focused on section 50(6), the judicial review procedure expressly adopted by that provision, and the rules governing when that procedure can be pursued. The judgment said the Oireachtas could provide otherwise.
Mr Justice Murray said he agreed with Ms Justice Donnelly that the appeal should be allowed. The supplied judgment extract does not state any further order or explain the effect of the ruling on the underlying planning decision.