The Supreme Court has ruled that Paul Clinton may argue additional grounds in his appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of his challenge to a compulsory purchase order affecting a large site beside O’Connell Street in Dublin.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 1 November 2006, addressed a preliminary question about the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. It did not decide whether the compulsory purchase order was valid or whether Clinton’s grounds of challenge succeed.
The High Court had dismissed Clinton’s application to quash an order made by Dublin City Council on 11 December 2001. The challenge raised several grounds, principally concerning the adequacy of reasons for making and confirming the order. The High Court certified a point of law about whether An Bord Pleanála could confirm an order for “development purposes” without requiring details of the proposed development or scrutiny of whether all the affected land was needed.
Clinton’s notice of appeal also listed grounds beyond that certified question. The Supreme Court considered whether the appeal was limited to the certified point.
The Court held that it was not. Section 50(4)(f) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 requires a High Court certificate before an appeal can proceed in this type of judicial review case. But, the judgment said, the section does not state that an appeal, once permitted, is confined to the certified point. The Court also relied on the wording’s legal history and earlier decisions interpreting similar provisions.
The judgment concludes that Clinton may advance any other ground of appeal that properly arises from the High Court decision. That qualification limits the ruling: it does not authorize grounds unrelated to that decision, and it does not determine the merits of any ground. The judgment addresses the preliminary jurisdiction issue; it does not state the outcome of the substantive appeal.